The Myth Of Hitler’s Gun Ban

Whenever a politician, or anyone else, starts talking about regulating guns, it’s a safe bet that someone will bring up how Hitler supposedly outlawed guns in Germany, which supposedly enabled him to do all the mischief he did.  As we’ve noted before, Adolf is a staple reference among propagandists. It’s become an automatic response to compare anyone you don’t like to Der Fuhrer, on the grounds that since he was evil incarnate, everything he ever said or did must also be evil. People have even been known to suggest that since he was a vegetarian, vegetarians are evil. It’s not surprising, then, that you often see this quote pop up:

“This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”  –Adolf Hitler, 1935

Trouble is, Hitler never made such a speech in 1935. Nor is there any record that he ever spoke these particular words at all.  This little “speech” was obviously written for him, many years after his death, by someone who wanted you to believe that gun registration is Hitler-evil.

What he did say, seven years later, was this: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.” So it’s fair to conclude that he believed “gun control” had its uses. But that’s quite a different thing from claiming that “gun control” was instrumental in the Nazi rise to power.

And the truth is that no gun law was passed in Germany in 1935. There was no need for one, since a gun registration program was already in effect in Germany; it was enacted in 1928, five years before Hitler’s ascendancy.  But that law did not “outlaw” guns, it just restricted their possession to individuals who were considered law-abiding citizens, and who had a reason to own one. And there’s no reason to consider that law particularly significant, either; the Nazis didn’t seize control of their own country with gunpowder. They used a much more potent weapon: propaganda.

Jews comprised less than one percent of the German population. Why didn’t the other 99 percent come to their defense and fight off Nazi tyranny? Quite simply, because they didn’t want to. They’d been persuaded that what was happening was best for their country, and that the Jews deserved what they got. It was propaganda, not firepower, that made the difference.

Under Nazi reign, Jews were prohibited from owning guns, just as they were prohibited from doing many things. And it has become an article of faith among the gun culture that had they been armed, the Holocaust would not have happened (that is, among those members of the gun culture who know that the Holocaust really did happen). But the concept of a handful of citizens armed with hunting rifles and Saturday night specials fending off an army is delusional hubris peculiar to gun addicts. On American soil, its most glorious day in the sun has been perhaps Waco. And we all know how well that turned out.

The gun culture is right about one thing, however. Hitler really did enact a new gun law. But it was in 1938, not 1935 – well after the Nazis already had the country in its iron grip. Furthermore, the new law in many ways LOOSENED gun restrictions. For example, it greatly expanded the numbers who were exempt, it lowered the legal age of possession from 20 to 18, and it completely lifted restriction on all guns except handguns, as well as on ammunition.

Given all of this, it’s pretty hard to make a case that “gun control” played a significant role in Nazi conquest. In fact, one might well say that when gun addicts brandish Hitler as a weapon, they are unwittingly arguing against their own cause.

(NOTE: Paragraph 5 of the above post was added after initial publication. For a more detailed discussion of this topic, see More on the Myth of Hitler’s Gun Ban, Part 1 and More on the Myth of Hitler’s Gun Ban, Part 2. Because the above post was deluged with comments, a few of them somehow were overlooked and did not get approved and published until later. Apologies to those who posted them.)

1,002 thoughts on “The Myth Of Hitler’s Gun Ban

  1. In 1935, under Hitler’s rule, prayers ceased to be obligatory in schools. In 1962, The U.S. Supreme Court outlawed school prayer.

    Hitler eliminated Christian holidays in the schools first by calling Christmas “Yuletide.” Most American public schools now call Christmas vacation a “winter break.”

    Hitler took Easter out of schools and instead honored that time of year as the beginning of spring. It has likewise become common for schools in America to refer to time off at Easter as “spring break.”

    Hitler controlled the church using intimidation and threats. A half-century ago, U.S. Senator and Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Baines Johnson, promoted a bill that included an amendment to use the Internal Revenue Service to remove the non-profit status of a church that speaks against the election of any specific political candidate.

    Hitler enticed thousands of pastors to promote paganism in their congregations. Neopaganism is one of the fastest growing religions in America, doubling every 18 months according to a June 2008 article in The Denver Post. Many American church-goers practice paganism such as “Christian” yoga, contemplative prayer, and walking a labyrinth. As evidence that church doors continue to open further to aberrant beliefs, a 2008 survey found that 57% of evangelicals do not believe Jesus Christ is the only way to God.

    Hitler was an environmentalist and vegetarian. Marriages performed by the Nazi state frequently included blessings of “Mother Earth” and “Father Sky.” Today Americans increasingly accept radical environmentalism, pantheism, and the celebration of Earth Day.
    Hitler was fascinated by eastern mysticism. Today an increasing number of American pastors encourage their followers to become “mystic warriors”.

    Hitler believed in reincarnation. He even convinced SS officers that by murdering millions of Jews and other “undesirables” they were allowing them to get on with the reincarnation process and come back more quickly in an advanced status. Americans increasingly accept the idea of reincarnation as well as good and bad karma.

    Hitler’s holocaust killed between 8 and 11 million Jews and non-Jews. Americans have killed an estimated 50 million babies since abortion was legalized through the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973. According to a July 7, 2008 article on worldnetdaily.com “An abortionist who claims to have destroyed more than 20,000 unborn children and who once was Hillary Clinton’s OB-GYN says he is doing ‘God’s work’ when he terminates a pregnancy…He admits that abortion kills a human soul.”

    Hitler killed 270,000 handicapped people through active euthanasia.[1] America and the courts are rushing toward the same with the murder of individuals such as Terri Schiavo. Oregon voters passed their Death with Dignity Act in 1994 and re-affirmed it in 1997. Washington state voters legalized doctor-assisted suicide on November 4, 2008. In December 2008, a Montana judge ruled terminally ill residents of that state have the right to physician-assisted suicide, and “death with dignity” is gaining acceptance in other states as well.

    By 1938, all private schools were abolished by Hitler and all education placed under Nazi control. There is constant pressure from federal and many state education authorities to require that Christian schools use state-mandated, humanistic textbooks. The Home School Legal Defense Association is fighting numerous battles at any given time to prevent parents from loosing the right to educate their children as they see fit. In August 2008, a federal district court ruled that the state of California university system may choose not to recognize the diplomas-and thereby deny college entrance to-students who attended a school using textbooks that express a Biblical worldview in the areas of history and science (i.e., Christian schools). Hitler prevented dissenters from using radio to challenge his worldview. Many powerful liberals in America have made clear their intent to reintroduce the “Fairness Doctrine” that would require conservative and religious radio stations to offer equal time to anti-Christian, anti-conservative worldviews.
    Pastors who spoke against Hitler’s worldview and his murderous regime found themselves on trial and frequently imprisoned for “Abuse of Pulpit.” In America, hate-crime legislation has the potential to criminalize Christians and pastors who speak out against the homosexual agenda.
    Many Christians in Germany justified their allegiance to Hitler through a belief that “Their duty to God was spiritual; their duty to the state was political.”[2] Many American Christians now have bought the lie that their worldview can be divided between the secular and the sacred-the politician has one area of responsibility, the pastor another, and never shall the two meet. Yet the Bible teaches that all issues are fundamentally spiritual.

    Hitler outlawed the cross and replaced it with the swastika. Today many churches, Christian colleges, and universities have willingly removed the cross from their buildings. Numerous court cases sponsored by the ACLU have required the removal of the cross from public grounds. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the Ten Commandments cannot be posted on public grounds for religious purposes.
    Hitler was fascinated with Friedrich Nietzsche and distributed his writings to his inner circle. Nietzsche promoted Nihilism, the belief that life has no meaning, and he is best known for his position that “God is dead”. Nietzsche is presently one of the most widely read authors by American college students.
    Hitler exploited the economic collapse of Germany to take over as dictator and usher in his brand of socialism. America’s financial crisis has given liberals in both political parties the opportunity to grow the size of government and implement freedom-robbing socialism at lightning speed.
    Hitler was obsessed with globalism, and many of America’s most powerful political leaders are willing to subjugate American sovereignty to contemporary globalism.
    Many Germans responded to Hitler by retreating into neutrality. Today most Americans prefer to remain neutral on moral issues that they think don’t affect them personally.
    On trial after World War II, Hitler’s henchmen used the defense that they had not broken any laws. True, they had not defied the laws of Germany since those had been re-written to fit the goals and objectives of Hitler. The Nazi leaders were nevertheless found guilty because the courts at the time recognized a “law above the law.” Yet now the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the law of nature and nature’s God by claiming that as society evolves, morals evolve, and so the law, too, must evolve.
    Calling upon Darwinian evolution, Hitler convinced the German people that purging millions of people was acceptable because of the need to create a pure race; also referred to as eugenics. American students across the board have been educated in Darwinian evolution because the Supreme Court has ruled that creation cannot be taught in our schools-even if both creation and evolution are taught side by side.
    Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood in America became acquainted with the doctors and scientists that had worked with Nazi Germany’s eugenics program and had no quarrel with the euthanasia, sterilization, abortion, and infanticide programs of the early Reich.[3] Sanger even published several articles in Birth Control Review that reflected Hilter’s White Supremacist worldview. Planned Parenthood now grosses one billion per year.
    In Germany, pastors often cited Romans 13:1-2 to encourage Christians to obey the Nazis. Today in America, many pastors have a false view of Romans 13:1-2 and have convinced millions that to disobey governing authorities is to disobey God. This poor training would facilitate Christians here doing just as the German Christians did if faced with similar challenges.
    Germans accepted socialism to avoid pain. Today’s Americans are rejecting capitalism in exchange for government-sponsored “free” healthcare, education, and countless other government handouts.
    Many Americans accept what I call, One World Spirituality. This is actually an amalgamation of the three worldviews of evolutionary humanism, Hindu pantheism, and occultism. I noted earlier that Hitler embraced all of these.
    America is rushing toward government-sponsored, national healthcare. We already have a form of this in Medicare and Medicaid. Hitler, too, expanded and centralized Germany’s healthcare system. As Melchior Palyi explained, “The ill-famed Dr. Ley, boss of the Nazi labor front, did not fail to see that the social insurance system could be used for Nazi politics as a means of popular demagoguery, as a bastion of bureaucratic power, [and] as an instrument of regimentation.”

    • Holy crap. You appear to be a walking encyclopedia of misinformation. I won’t bother debunking all of this garbage here, as it would take a great deal of space, and most if not all of it will be addressed in my future posts, if they haven’t been addressed already. But your very first statement is quite typical of what follows it: your implication is that if prayers “ceased to be obligatory” under Hitler, that’s tantamount to “outlawing” prayer. But more important, you repeat the tired old myth that the U.S. Supreme Court itself “outlawed” prayer. Not so, of course. (http://voices.yahoo.com/legal-urban-legends-debunked-did-supreme-court-1951194.html) I truly feel a great deal of sympathy for anyone who believes ANY of the things you’ve said here – much less ALL of them!

      • In two landmark decisions, Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), the US Supreme Court established what is now the current prohibition on state-sponsored prayer in schools.

      • One needn’t even be familiar with such rulings to spot your straw man. First you talk about outlawing school prayer. Then you substitute a ban on “state-sponsored prayer” in schools. A gargantuan difference.

      • If your teacher was a Muslim, and wanted to lead the class in a Muslim prayer, would you be so rabidly in support of that? Because chances are you wouldn’t. That’s why the state is not supposed to support any religion over another, so that people can make religious decisions for themselves privately. Religion is great individually, not so awesome when the state starts making decisions based on religious belief.

      • In this area of this thread, I don’t see any post from an Amy, but here is a link to a new video which is being shown on Facebook, and which was made by a responsible, ex-cop gun owner. It places some new perspective on the argument that insists taking responsible measures to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them, somehow infringes on our rights. Merely taking such common sense precautions can help prevent some gun crimes—perhaps not all of them—however the maker of this video asks why even helping in a small degree is not perfectly acceptable.

        Surely basic laws used to ensure keeping guns out of the hands of those who might use them for harm, have nothing to do with big bad Obama wanting to control us all, like NRA tries to suggest, nor do they represent any Fascist control over our rights to self defense, as American citizens.

        Here is a link to the eleven minute video:

        http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/06/1428369/-Gun-owner-records-must-see-video-for-all-responsible-gun-owners

      • This is intended for the POP,

        My first response was to Andrea and not Amy. However, that comment ended up near the very top of this thread instead of on the bottom. I also made two other comments to those currently commenting on The Myth of Hitler’s Gun Ban, but even though they were posted yesterday, I can’t see hide nor hair of them anywhere?

        So firstly, did you see my comments, and why are some comments made in response to those who most recently posted near the bottom of the thread in what seems to be random areas of this thread? I’ve had this problem before, and unless you have not yet accepted my posts, I will probably need my tech support guys to reinstall google chrome.

        If you want to delete this comment after responding, that’s fine.

      • I’m having trouble sorting out which comments you’re referring to, Peter. There are nearly 900 of them on this post to sort through. If you could tell me the first words, and where they ended up and where they go, maybe I can relocate them properly. Have you comments all appeared now? Sometimes there is a backlog, but everything appears up-to-date at the moment.

      • Hi POP,

        I’m having trouble remembering the screen names of those I made comments in response to. However I remember that they were engaged in an argument which was pro/con concerning whether Christians, were willing participants in Nazi Germany, or whether, one of these commenters only thought so, after having forming incorrect concept of what it means to be Christian. The Jest of my argument was that if anything, what happened in Nazi Germany, was indicative of the fact that any group of people, religious or otherwise, is susceptible to the hateful propaganda that is so often circulated by greedy and power hungry political leaders. Sorry I can’t remember more of the specifics.

        I did notice this morning, that you have posted the recent reply I made to David Vasquez about what the 2nd Amendment implies, and whether the founders even considered that guns should be free of prudent regulations. But that one too, dated from October of this year was actually posted nearer the top of the thread rather than close to the bottom, where new comments have usually beem posted. Is this more dispersed and extended scope of the commenting area due to the extremely large numbers of them on this thread? It’s also hard for me to scroll through these almost 900 comments, in order to find the desired ones. In fact even when scrolling at top speed, it literally takes me several minutes to search from the top to the bottom, and at this speed, most of the actual comments appear as an incomprehensible blur of words.

      • I’m not sure yet what is going on. I think, however, that the problem is minimized when I am able to approve comments in a timely fashion rather than letting the pile up.

      • Thanks POP,

        And I suppose the flurry of recent comments on one of your most controversial posts, is keeping you hopping in cyberspace. I appreciate your efforts.

        Peter W. Johnson

      • Indeed environmentalism, paganism, evolution etc has been hijacked in the name of promoting nature above humans as a eugenicist control mechanism.

        Anyone with an IQ over 50 that has looked into the facts knows that anthropogenic global warming is a complete scam with zero evidence to back it up and overwhelming evidence against it.

        The globalists also want humanity to go vegetarian to weaken us. Meat promotes health, muscular strength, iron, aminos etc and is an important part of the diet, especially for the warrior caste. Yes some humans are born with strength and lots of fast twitch muscle, they are the ‘warriors and protectors’ if you will. The globalists want to undermine health/muscular development as much as possible in preparation for the future escalation of military interaction with the populace.

        Vegetarians are also psychologically more predisposed to evil acts than meat eaters. They tend to eschew the animalistic vices, whereas meat eaters tend to be more sexual and animalistic, this mindset tends to go hand in hand with empathic animalistic kindness. People with fleshly vices like meat, sex, (and cigars.drink etc) tend to have the human empathic kind quality whereas the vegetarian clean-living types with no vices almost always tend to have one vice……..power.

        This is not all vegetarians of course but a general tendency exists towards the afore-mentioned personality traits.

        The globalist environmental anti-human religion gives the power hungry vegetarian types the chance to get some real power and have it pseudo-legitimised via the globalist ethos.

      • Please stop, my sides are absolutely splitting. Just mark me down as one of those vegetarian, environmentalist, evolutionist naturalists with an !Q below 50 who is very impressed by the mountain of solid “zero” evidence pointing to anthropogenic global warming. Oh, and I’ve also been an extremely healthy and active vegetarian for some 25 years, during which time I’ve seen my carnivorous friends and relatives drop like flies and develop a host of health problems. Wanna arm wrestle?

      • ok im a meat eater but i have to disagree with sabretruthiger, i have done research and ever time i look at the question of vegetarian vs meat eating i get meat is bad and so i looked for research to support and debunk it. i have found some of the most reputable clinics in the world doing research and they all same the same thing. National Institutes of Health-AARP says after a 10 yr study the find eating meat raises your chances of heart disease and cancer. also i did some research on anatomy and found by our very structure because we lack a protruding jaw we are actually designed to be vegetarians.
        Genesis 9:4
        But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
        Genesis 1:30
        And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so
        1 Corinthians 8:13
        Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.
        so i am inclined to disagree please dont be blind, do your homework, just an FYI i am a texan who is a conservative republican party supporter. so i am very anti liberal socialist agenda but i dont believe in propaganda to pass my ideas on, that is in fact what Adolf Hitler did

      • Ok, First of all, Genesis 9:4 is saying not to eat the blood. The blood is life and in order to eat the meat you must pour out the blood (Deuteronomy 12:23). Genesis 1:30 is before the first sin of man. In Genesis 9:3 God gives his blessing to Noah by saying “3Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.” 1 Corinthians 8:13 is talking about eating the meat of sacrificial animals. The Bible isn’t a pick-n-pull of verses to suit your own propaganda. So I would recommend you do a little more of your own homework before dispelling someone else’s argument.

      • I just love how people pull from the Bible what they want to meet the evil deeds in the end. You’re a dumbass and have no clue what the Bible says. Let me share something with you…God says don’t eat/drink the blood of an animal. You are suppose to slit the throat and then hang it for it to drain. Why do you think meat lockers are full of animals hanging from hooks? So Rocky can use them for punching bags? Get educated please.

      • I’ll just add a bit about vegetarianism. I have worked in fish processing. 112 hours a week for a season, until downtime, which could be 6 weeks or a month. I found that if the processor had a weight room onboard, I could keep my energy up by riding a stationary bike for an hour and lifting weights another hour. Meat slows you down. I switched to a veggie diet. I would eat a big mess of eggs and hashbrowns for my first meal, but no other meat. You can go without protein for a good long time. After a month or 2 I had my wife send me protein powder. But when you habitually eat meat then stop, you’ll find that protein keeps you fat. The workers who ate meat (everybody) were always tired and pissed off. A lot of them quit. I ate some meat 8 weeks into it. That shift, my joints and muscles were very sore. All I could think about was quitting. It took me four or so hours to work off the feeling. Also I had to drink more water than usual to process the meat I had just eaten, and I had to go to the bathroom a lot that shift. That isn’t good when you are trying not to get fired or sent to the slime line. Everyone thought I was crazy, because I was always “up” and smiling (I also had a bitchin’ physique). I outworked everyone around me and was very gung-ho. When I worked these crazy jobs, I would also cut out the coffee. I switched to tea, and drank a lot of Emergen-C and water, and I also took fiber pills and fish oil pills. I got to a point where I could lose a pound of weight per hour on the cardio in the weight room. Just something to think about–it’s my personal experience. If you work a lot and want to be really strong, you will minimize meat consumption. (I was in the navy too, went to a war, have an “E” ribbon for the .45 and Marksman for the M14 and M16. So spare me this bullcrap about a “warrior caste.” We are not a caste society (on paper, anyway!) We may honor the troops, but it’s not a free-thinker or American trait to fetishize them. God gave you the gift of a brain, you should look into using it. Also, someone who believes we have, or should have, a “warrior caste” is expressing an “anti-American” sentiment. So is someone who says something is “unAmerican” to describe free people. There’s no such thing as “unAmerican.” There is, however, such a thing as “Anti-American.” Like POP says, read the Federalist Papers. You might also want to check out some different books, other than Massad Ayoob or Soldier of Fortune.

      • Hi, in response to concernedonlooker (not certain he/she will ever see this). I just wanted to correct your references. All three of your references from the bible were taken incorrectly, though I am grateful you were making an attempt.

        First you reference Genesis 9:4 & what is being discussed here is that they were to not eat of anything living. Basically, if the animal’s heart was beating, they were to not eat of it.

        Then you reference Genesis 1:30, and you are correct that at that time, they were given every green plant for food (at that time).

        Lastly, you reference 1 Corinthians 8:13. In those days, Jews followed a certain law and they had restrictive diets that other cultures or people groups did not. So, here, Paul is telling his brothers in Christ to not partake in something that might hinder another brother’s walk. For instance, there are some who believe that all consumption of alcohol is wrong, so I would not ask them to consume with me and cause them to stumble. Nor would I discuss sex amidst those who are unmarried, lest I cause them to stumble. Here, he is specifically discussing meat as a stumbling block. To sum it up, we are not to provide a temptation for others.

        I also wanted to offer a reference of my own from Genesis 9:3 “Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.” This is following the flood. At this point, God offers everything that lives and moves for food to mankind.

        I do believe that our bodies were originally intended for plants and not animals, but for whatever reason, be it the fact that we were now descending from Noah’s heritage and maybe he lacked the genes for a vegan only diet, God gave us all that lived and moved as our nourishment from the flood on.

        Just thought I would help anyone who was wondering about where all of this came from. Thank you again concernedonlooker for trying to point everyone back to the Bible. It is a great place to look for answers!

      • God, I am so tired of you people. I wish all of you would just take your fundamentalist, gun-fetishist, right-wing paranoia and just go start your revolution already. Then we could be done with you.

      • Oh for Pete’s sake, if you’re gonna cite the Schempp decision, at least do the research and get your facts straight. Schempp was an ordained minister, who filed the suit because he felt that the public schools were interfering with the religious education he was trying to give his kids.

        I don’t know if you’re old enough to remember the school prayer that you’re talking about, but it wasn’t a simple “God is great, God is good, and we thank him for our food” at the beginning of the day, at least it wasn’t where I grew up. In New Jersey it was like a little mini-service. You did the Pledge of Allegiance, a “flag song,” a reading from one of the Psalms (probably the 23rd), and then The Lord’s prayer. Now I was seven when all of this just quietly disappeared, so my memories are a little fuzzy on this, and there may have been more. But if you were Catholic it was the wrong version of The Lord’s Prayer, and if you were Jewish, you were screwed. It may have been a lot different and a lot more intense in Maryland, which is where I believe Schempp was.

        Moreover, when the Schempp kids asked to be excused from the room during those exercises, they were regularly bullied and beaten up by the “good Christian kids” for being different.

        Knowing that the suit was brought by a Christian sheds a whole different light on the case and the resulting decision.

      • Funny thing is, anyone who hasn’t actually seen through Obama’s eyes can really describe what he feels and sees. Its easy to speculate according to preconceived bias, but more difficult to see past all the propaganda about someone who has really not done anything wrong, or uniquely attributable to Obama’s own presidency.

      • What I don’t get is why he says “gun addicts” and why he doesn’t clearly state who he’s referring when he says “gun addicts”.
        The gun control argument isn’t about a gun addiction, it’s about our right to own arms for the protection of ourselves, our family, our land, and our country from tyranny.
        The only thing I know that has a gun addiction is our own government; spending $4 trillion a year on our military, we outspend the world. Meanwhile, mass murder with weapons our government supplies to the FSA (Free Syrian Army) is underway in the Middle East and we all sit back and watch the next episode of Jersey Shore and American Idol.

      • @Patrick wasn’t even being original. He copied-and-pasted that verbatim from a screed that has appeared on numerous right-wing and Christocratic blogs, entitled “26 Similarities Between America and Nazi Germany.” It is, of course, more accurately entitled “26 Things the Original Author Made Up to Libel and Demonize Things S/He Hates About Modern America by Falsely Linking Them to Nazi Germany.”

        Oh, and for the record, that quote you included in your blog post about not allowing subject peoples to bear arms comes from Hitler’s Table Talk which is of dubious veracity at best. It’s what one man claimed to have heard Hitler say in alleged private conversations at private dinners (much of which completely contradicts what we know he said, wrote, and did). Nearly all of the “Hitler was a Christianity-hating atheist” quotes that aren’t just plain made up come from that book.

      • Great article, alot to think about. In the case of the holocaust I agree the gun issue would not have mattered for several reasons. First the depression and affording the amount of guns and ammo needed. Second the propaganda Hitler had of reasoning that one group of people were the cause of all their problems. After a given time nothing could have stopped what was in motion until it became a world war with all other countries not overthrown by Hitler to take him down..

        But….. The hypothetical reasonings of what ifs… What if Hitler didn’t choose propaganda? So no one truly could say what would or would not have happened

        It is also questionable about other Hitler superstitious decisions not to build certain technology whether or not the Nazis won.

        The basis of this article was to debunk defending gun ownership without restrictions.

        We have to “think” about the founding fathers intent behind the 2nd ammendment and why it is the 2nd one.

        I am not a gun owner nor a NRA supporter. I don’t have an issue with people owning guns for any reason except for taking out people for their own selfish purposes or to commit any type of crime whether they actually shoot or not.

        The era of the birth of America was to be free on our own as a sovereign nation or to continue with the tyranny of King George. We had no say in our overall government. So first ammendment freedom of speech. We can point out what we see wrong without prosecution from the government.

        The 2nd to defend our nation from foreign and domestic enemies.

        Too much restriction on law abiding citizens ties our hands from defending ourselves if necessary with guns if that would have been our chouce of weapon.

        It does NOTHING to stop anyone from committing crimes against us or our nation.

        The point of gun control is not to control or abolish law abiding citizens. They obey the law.

        But I have to agree that the first steps of totalitarian or dictator government IS to disarm the masses. Hitler just happened to take advantage of people’s hard economic times and turn people against a different group of people. He didn’t need to disarm them.

    • Patrick,
      Regarding Hitler and religion, it’s difficult to believe that Hitler was pushing any kind of (new) religiosity (or “paganism”) when he is making public speeches where he says things like this below to his followers who supposedly are hanging on his every word:

      “National Socialism is not a cult-movement – a movement for worship; it is exclusively a ‘volkic’ political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship. Therefore we have no rooms for worship, but only halls for the people – no open spaces for worship, but spaces for assemblies and parades. We have no religious retreats, but arenas for sports and playing-fields, and the characteristic feature of our places of assembly is not the mystical gloom of a cathedral, but the brightness and light of a room or hall which combines beauty with fitness for its purpose. In these halls no acts of worship are celebrated, they are exclusively devoted to gatherings of the people of the kind which we have come to know in the course of our long struggle; to such gatherings we have become accustomed and we wish to maintain them. We will not allow mystically-minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else – in any case, something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our program there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will – not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord.

      There were times when a half-light was the necessary condition for the effectiveness of certain teachings: we live in an age when light is for us the fundamental condition of successful action. It will be a sorry day when through the stealing in of obscure mystic elements the Movement or the State itself issues obscure commissions…. It is even dangerous to issue any commission for a so-called place of worship, for with the building will arise the necessity for thinking out so-called religious recreations or religious rites, which have nothing to do with National Socialism. Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men: it is to these we pay our respect. Our commandment is the courageous fulfillment of the duties arising from those laws. But for religious rites we are not the authorities, but the churches! If anyone should believe that these tasks of ours are not enough for him, that they do not correspond with his convictions, then it is for him to prove that God desires to use him to change things for the better. In no event can National Socialism or the National Socialist State give to German art other tasks than those which accord with our view of the world.” – Nuremberg Sept. 6, 1938

      It sounds pretty secular, something like “If you want spirituality, go to church.”

      • Did it ever occur to you that Christ was apolitical, saying, “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. He also commanded his disciples to spread the Gospel, and would you believe it? They thought that gatherings of believers were an ideal way to spread the Gospels! So now you are minimizing secular thinking because it expects believers to attend churches as the preferred way to absorb spiritual teachings. That’s a good one–almost as good as believing we have a “God given right to own guns.”

        Whatever mystical beliefs Hitler may have had, it does not follow to conclude either that he sincerely understood them, or that none of them have any meaning because of his interests in them. It seem to me that he was also often seen around guns–sounds a little NRA to me!

    • What a bunch of garbage. Whoever you get your information from should have been in Hitler’s propaganda machine.

    • Hitler farted on a Tuesday in 1935. Obama farted on a Wednesday in 2010. One must be the reincarnation of the other.

      • Hitler may have been a ‘christian’ according to man’s definition of what a ‘chrisitian’ is… but his ‘fruit’ says otherwise… murder of millions of people… thru death camps, firiing squads…? christian? NOT! ANTI CHRIST? oh most definately… a mere shadowing of the man that will come on the scene in the future… only thing.. this man will do it thru ‘peace’.. unlike Hitler.. who did it thru war… so Hitler being a ‘christian’… NOT… Jesus said you would ‘know them by their fruits’…

      • More deeds that Hitler did:

        Hitler demanded the teaching of Christianity in German public schools. If you looked at a Nazi belt buckle, “Gott mitt uns” (God with us) was engraved on it. While this was already in place, he did nothing to remove it.

        Hitler outlawed atheistic and freethinking groups in Germany in the Spring of 1933. In May, he closed Freethinkers Hall in Berlin and gave it to Berlin Protestant church authorities for use in outreach to non churchgoers. Hardly the actions of someone promoting atheism.

        In [the] Freethinkers Hall, which before the Nazi resurgence, was the national headquarters of the German Freethinkers League, the Berlin Protestant church authorities have opened a bureau for advice on church matters. Its chief object is to win back former church goers and assist those who had not belonged to any religious congregation obtaining church”

        Hitler was a devote Catholic, an alter boy in his youth and there are almost 100 passages in Mein Kampf where he professes his Christianity.

      • What is obvious has nothing to do with the teachings of Christ–very few of us can picture him goose stepping and preaching a concept like the supposed Aryan master race. What is really at work here is the fact that human beings, religious or not, are all to susceptible to the vile charms of propaganda, especially when used by charismatic and repressive political figures who have a deadly talent for convincing anyone—secular or non-secular, that he is the leader who will keep them safe and prosperous.

        It’s safe to say, that he essence of Christianity has nothing to do with ethnic hatred, war crimes, genocide or ruthless forms of torture, but unfortunately self described Christians are also capable of using their religion to rationalize any kind of ungodly ideas they would like.

        Personally I see the present domination and power hungry tactics of the GOP, (held hostage to the Tea Party), as responsible for 100% of our government’s gridlock. It seems that they are promoting the idea that, any ideas don’t need to be deterred by the facts and, would rather make them up instead—relentlessly bolstered by astronomical funding from billionaires to the point where they have actually been able to convince the middle class to vote against its own best interests. Whether these “worm tongues” (a reference to Lord of The Rings), slither out of political ideologies or from under rocks of religious rationalizations, the effect is the same, and is fundamentally describable by the term Fascist!

      • Lets not forget Pope Pius XII who actually helped Hitler through his inaction. Pope Pius stood by and watched from Vatican City as the Germans rounded up the Jews. Christian?

      • P.O.P., everyone sins, except Christ, of course, though He was tempted to sin (in every way that we, too, are tempted), and did not, in order that we could all be made righteous through Him. So, yes, it is possible that one may have committed the sin of murder (all sins are equal, by the way) and still be/become a believer in Christ. However, what Travis is trying to say is that those who do so (slaughter another human being) in the “Name of Christ” are not truly a follower of Christ and if they were to pass away before casting their sins at the feet of Christ and trusting that God/Christ is the only one who can forgive them of their sins, then they would not find a home with Christ.

        So, to sum it up, there are many who say they do things in the “Name of Christ”, but if what they are doing contradict what the Bible says, then you can count on the fact that they are certainly wrong.

        Christians do sin, they are not a perfect being, however, you have to look at their life and determine whether they are living in sin (a continuous struggle that they do not give to Christ), or if their life is lived more abundantly in Christ with some hiccups along the road. If they are living in sin and do not bear the resemblance of Christ, they are more than likely not “Christians”.

        It is very sad because many have been fooled by the enemy to believe that they are “Christians”, when, in fact, they have no more put their trust in Christ than I have in the weather man.

        Hope this helps to differentiate.

      • Christians throughout history have shed oceans of blood in the name of Christ. If you choose not to call them true Christians, that’s your right. When they call themselves Christians, however, I don’t feel the need to dispute them.

      • P.O.P., please refer to my other posts found under your response to Patrick on May 17th 2012 at 7:34pm & also under Ken’s post on January 10, 2013 at 6:43pm. I am certain I am not doing this much justice, but I thought I would at least shed some light on the truth from the source of Christianity (the Bible, not me, clearly). And yes, it is not up to us who is truly a believer, but, if the question is going to be asked about what “makes” (using the quoted term loosely) a Christian, then we might as well get it from the source.

      • Most Christians forget that god order the wholesale slaughter of the Canaanites via Joshua. It’s the same god that the Christians think is all loving. Well he’s a mass murderer. Sorry, it’s in your book.

      • My father taught me that God only chooses war as a last resort: if can’t keep those who choose evil form wiping out those who believe in Him any other way.

      • God had Joshua do this because these the Canaanites were living in evil. I were no doubt influencing those who were not. Our God is all Loving and He has a plan in everything that He does. And for those who believe that God does this just cuz “It’s fun” are going to have a rude awakening one day.

      • If Hitler used the Catholic Church as a means to power, that is probably the reason why–because it helped catapulted him to power by providing a deceptive legitimacy to his views.

        I have my own theological opinions, but I understand that just because someone claims to be Christian, that doesn’t mean that person really try to live a spiritual life. And whats more, is that many who genuinely consider themselves to be Christians do not always act in the most loving way to their fellow human beings. And by this I am including those of fundamentalist faiths.

        The reason that we must not have a state approved or instituted religion, is not just to prevent the “wrong” faiths from being granted special status, it is also to prevent any faith from being exclusively used to justify the narrow minded opinion that any person who practices one specific faith, automatically has a monopoly on absolute truth. Those who believe so, are useless to argue with if they start with the assumption that they ” know it all.”

        The Bible is a piece of literature with many beautiful and wise passages in it but that does not grant everything in it, the special status of being infallible knowledge. A case in point can be found in Exodus Chapter 31 verse 14–“You shall keep the Sabbath because it is Holy to you; Everyone who profanes it will be put to death.” And before anyone brings up theological hair splittings such as “It only means after death.” or, “it only means spiritual death without faith” etc, consider a phrase from the next verse (verse 15)–“Whoever Does work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.” Not only does this mean that if everything in the Bible is absolutely true, then we are committing crimes punishable by death whenever we mow the lawn on Sunday, or even Saturday, if you go the Orthodox route. and the words, “put to” death, definitely convey an air that human enforcement will police this transgression.

        So obviously if you believe every word said there, then you would consider trying, and executing, anyone who raked the leaves on the Sabbath–but of course that is absolutely absurd!

        Jesus himself said, when asked about the holiness of the Sabbath, “The Sabbath was made for man–not man for the Sabbath.” And this is definitely NOT at all the same sentiment.

        I get tired of so many people who think that their particular faiths are completely infallible and the other guys aren’t. What seems more reasonable to me, it that the basic core teachings of most major faith are the same (in so many words) love God and love your neighbor as you love yourself.”

        I wish that religious fundamentalists who moan and fret about a society that should be based on religious faith—at least in the sense that Christians should be able to use any public venue desired to spread their beliefs, would realize how undemocratic it is to say, that free speech exists, but only my version i.e. my religion’s teachings are the right one!

        It is far more likely that biblical injunctions against homosexuality and other examples of “abnormal” behavior come primarily from the aversion straight people have always felt towards a sexual orientation that seems so aberrant to them. Besides, it is obviously not true that some people chose to be that way out of some kind of sacrilegious defiance. This is no more true than that those who are very straight had to make a decision to be hetero. Both orientations are found in Nature and, therefore, under most religious doctrines must have been created by God.

        The Bible has many wonderful passages and serves as a great source of love and inspiration to many of us. But every word ever written in it is not divinely ordained by God. I suspect human fault is responsible for many of the more questionable passages. If you disagree, turn yourself in to authorities next time you mow your lawn. Or admit that even the Taliban must have it right to believe in One True Way!
        That also goes for any other major faith which negates or minimizes all the ethical content of faiths other than those believed by themselves!

        I don’t expect all comenters to understand, but I am sure some of them will know what I mean!

      • Ha, he used it because Catholic and Lutherans were the popular religions in Germany… after he got into power he began secularizing his Nation.

    • You are as full of Crap as a Christmas turkey. My mother attended Catholic School in Germany until 1944. I have pictures of her with the Nuns. Hitler had an agreement with the Catholic Church called the Condordat. He instituted a TAX that all must pay to the Church regardless of wether one atteneded or not. My made belonging to a Religious institution obligatory. HE himself was a Catholic. I dont know where you are getting your lies but they are lies nonetheless.

      • I’m pretty sure the Muslims have far surpassed the Catholics by now. In fact I’m pretty sure the Muslims killed more people last year than all people killed by the entire Inquisition.

      • Just a throw out there to EVERYONE. Don’t be gullible, please. If you believe it anytime someone says “I’m a “Christian” than your as gullible as the people that committed suicide when the “War of the Worlds” aired on the radio Oct. 30, 1938. As has been stated several times before, you HAVE to look at the fruits. I can say I’m President of the United States, but without proof no one would believe me. “Fruits” are proof you could say. Not trying to be overly harsh, I’m not one with words, and it seemed like one of the only ways of saying it.

    • Snivel, whine. What, 2000 years of ruling the world, during which you started wars, killed heretics, and burned lonely old widows at the stake wasn’t good enough for you? All we ask is that you show other religions some measure of respect and not pretend that yours is the only faith in this country. That’s not anything like the mass murder Christians historically perpetrated against anyone who didn’t follow along. Get over yourselves… seriously.

    • You know, you look hard enough, you can find similarities between any 2 people. Did you know Margaret Thatcher ALSO supported goverment health care? And Ronald Reagan supported sensible gun laws and the ban on assault weapons?

    • So I stopped reading after you claimed the supreme court outlawed prayer in schools because I grew up in a public school where we prayed every day. The law is not banning prayer from school, only banning the force of making every single person pray, no matter what his/her religion. If your first paragraph isn’t legit, I doubt the rest is.

    • I’m a Bible believing Christian and disagree with almost everything that you say here. This knee jerk comparison to Hitler is beneath contempt and intellectually dishonest. Prayer is not outlawed in school. Officially sponsored prayer is and should be outlawed. What you are espousing and railing about has nothing to do with your faith but with how your conservative culture has hijacked the Christian faith and turned it into something which no longer resembles Christianity. There is no war on religion or Christianity in this country. The reason that people are turning to new age religion in this country is because they are sick of the misrepresented Christianity that people like you present. If you want to see people in our country respond positively to Christ, then you need to move away from your politically and culturally based syncretic cult that the right wing fundamentalists have created. You talk about Hitler and Germany — well, one of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s ( who was put to death by Hitler ) colleagues, Eberhard Busch, visited church’s in our country in 2005 and this is what he said:

      “To my regret I got the impression that among Christians the relation of church and state or the relation of what it means to be a child of God and to be an American has become confused. What is confessed by this: that in some churches in your country the American flag is erected? At Lancaster Theological Seminary I was asked what I think about Americanism, and I gave the answer: You may be grateful to God that you are allowed to be Americans. So many from this country are messengers of peace in their surroundings and for people far away. But Americanism? – this means violence! God preserve your country and the rest of humanity from that! (In Europe )There they had to learn that the church must be separated from the state, because the church had to ask again and again not what the state liked, what the nation liked, or what the people would like to hear, but what would proclaim and declare God … Today, we have to do with ‘American Christians’ who cannot separate nation from gospel, counting upon God to bless their crusades and praying to ‘Jesus, the warrior’ rather than to ‘the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.’ To this, we speak a firm ‘No!’”

      The problem with the American church is that it has become all American and leaves little room for Christianity.

      • What “American Church” are you talking about”? There is no such thing. My Church, Williamsburg Community Chapel, uses the revelation of God, the Bible, as an authority. What do you use?

      • There is no such thing as the “American Church”. It says so right in the 1st amendment of the US Constitution. Read it for once. Thomas Jefferson’s letter regarding the Treaty of Tripoli also reaffirms the fact that there is no official State endorsed religion. We have American interpretations of a particular faith. We have Americanized services. But we do NOT have an American Church. Never did. And if we do, then we will no longer be American.

      • I believe by american church is not a formal title of a national religion but the ideas that america and god in many churches throughout the country are intertwined in both prayer and thought. God bless america is a prime example of what is being described when in fact nationalism has absolutely no part in any core Christian belief. Or the fact that in many churches praying for soldiers is commonly done when murder in any shape or form is a mortal sin. So when in fact your praying for murderers, jesus would certainly not approve. I witnessed this last year in alabama where A small town’s ministry (about 5-7 people) at a fourth of july celebration decided to give speeches to the town about how religion belongs in school (their religion of course) and to pray to the men and women of the armed forces. While i personally believe the military is a necessary evil in this world i do not mix god/jesus/faith with them at all. To do so would be a perversion of my faith.

      • I think that RC below was the only one who understood what I was trying to say, so perhaps I was not clear enough. Certainly there should be no such thing as a state church. The quote from Eberhard Busch above was addressing essentially what RC was saying .. there’s too much nationalism within our churches. Apart from the obvious presence of flags in our churches, there are the more subtle examples. In a church I recently attended, over the period of a year there were numerous outreach ministries in support of our troops and outreach to “first responders”. There’s nothing wrong about those things, but it was curious to me that the statement of appreciation to “those who serve the community” didn’t include teachers or those who don’t wear a uniform. The reason is fairly obvious to me. Within the evangelical church in America, there is a disproportionate number of people who push for an overwhelmingly strong military, who support gun rights, who see America as some sort of world savior. The problem is that, from a spiritual point of view, none of these issues are clear cut or resolved and there should be more heartfelt searching and questioning within the church. The church in America is far too much like the culture that it comes from … especially from the fringe right. People like Patrick can spout scripture but their views are simply their views and have much more to with how they were raised than the teachings of Jesus.

      • @James,
        This is just my understanding of your clarification…

        The hyper-nationalism within the Christian Right of America has become, in and of itself, its own religion. Their membership seems to prioritize the the Nationalism over the religious philosophy otherwise taught in the same denomination outside of US.

        Is that what you meant?

      • Tracey, yes, exactly and it’s what Eberhard Busch was trying to say. My life is prioritized. God is first in my life, followed by my wife. My country is way down the list. God is not an American. In fact, while people like Patrick seem to think that America is a Christian nation ( or founded as one ), the truth is that nationalism is an impediment to genuine conversion. Syncretism is the mixture of various religions, and it’s my belief that what we’ve come to define as the evangelical church in this country has very little to do with Christianity. “Anonymous” below says that at his church they use the Bible as their authority. I do as well. To often though, many who say that they use the Bible as their authority, really don’t. They too often bend and misuse scripture to justify their own conservative, cultural beliefs. In fact, their true god is their cultural upbringing. There is little room left for God to be involved in their lives. The current debate over guns is a prime example of this. The vast majority of evangelicals support political parties which promote a knee jerk defense of weapons. I’m not addressing the politics of this or judging any individual Christian’s decision to own a gun. The issue is that there is NO debate within the majority of evangelical churches on this. Pastors may teach that it’s a sin to have long hair, or that life begins at conception or any number of other issues that are not clearly established in scripture, but they won’t even touch the issue of whether it’s a conflict for Christians to own guns ( much less promote them ). There are many more scriptures, and those scripture are much clearer, about the issue of guns ( swords, chariots, etc ) and God’s disdain for them. But, there is no real discussion. The reason is painfully obvious. For far too many Christians, this is an area of their lives which they have told God “You are not welcome to talk to me about this.” If all Christians would genuinely try to follow Jesus’ teachings, then the membership of the NRA would drop dramatically. I’m going to do all that I can to challenge and, if necessary, confront my brothers and sister on this false idol.

      • And BMW made Hitler’s airplane parts. So you point is? Germany had many businesses that were built up by WWII. So did America. There would be no Jeep if it was not for WWII.

      • IBM was a major business partner with the Germans. In fact they built the “computer system” that was used to keep track of all the victims of the holocaust.

      • I will say this, America allowed this to happen and even financed him in the beginning as national socialism was much more appealing to big american business as was fascism in Spain defeating anarcho-syndicalism in their 1930s revolution, unlike the idea of bolshevism and a worker owned government in Russia, but we know how that ended anyway. This enabled a major boost in Germany’s economy though massive industrial advances as this was to give us another economic ally. It was to be their job to take down the People’s Revolution in Russia. While all this was happening, the British administration was covering up some of it’s own flaws that would soon turn into its own holocaust known as the Bengali Holocaust that killed approxamately 6-7 million Indians, hindu & muslim. This atrocity went well coverd up to much of the world as many still know nothing about it and such was trying to happen in Germany but could not go on as Hitler began engaging our allies and reached out and bombed London and we became financially obliged to them. This is the part that we, the Americans and British, had to play in it and it is just the beginning. This is all verifiable history and if you look at university websites instead of second hand information you will find the truth if you look hard enough that the nations we hold so dear have demonstrated acts more heinous than this, or at least as bad. In the time that Britain spent in India 1.8 billion Indians died from starvation or violence. Since we have entered Afghanistan there have been 5.6 million Afghan war related deaths. From 2003-2011 there were 2.7 million post-invasion Iraqi war related deaths. The numbers go on as these are the two places that are televised that the population is aware of. I say this just to say that not all men can be lumped into a category because they support guns. We have a government problem and a major one and have had for some time. We supported a government that commited the mass murder of Gandhi’s people. Now is not the time for gun control and or fathers would agree. Background checks? Sure. We need assault weapons and this is no time to take them. i believe in Thomas Jefferson. He saw the folley in the Massechusettes Rebellion and still said, “God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” If we don’t have assault weapons, how do you suppose we can keep our government in check, especially in a time when it keeps getting larger?

    • While such paranoia may get the old adrenalin racing and make one feel alive, it is dangerous to bandy about such falsehoods. To begin with, the US Supreme Court did not “outlaw” prayer in schools. In fact, it has held up the right for people to pray in school. And there are clubs all over the country that pray. In schools. We just do not have out gov’t sponsored schools, paid for by everyone’s tax money, supporting one religion over another. Sounds fair for everyone. Including Christians. Remember, the prayer you want in public schools may not be the kind of prayer that you want.
      I am looking over the rest of your statement, and I am wondering which Christian colleges and universities have felt compelled to remove crosses from their buildings and grounds. Seems that our religious colleges here in the midwestern part of the country put up anything they want. Because they are private. My husband and I paid for our children to go to Catholic schools, and were glad that religion was a part of it. When they changed to public schools, we were equally glad that religion wasn’t a part of it, because we don’t want to see our freedoms melt away like that.
      I don’t have the time or inclination to comment on all of your points. suffice it to say that some of your statements were more outlandish than those I refer to.

    • While such paranoia may get the old adrenalin racing and make one feel alive, it is dangerous to bandy about such falsehoods. To begin with, the US Supreme Court did not “outlaw” prayer in schools. In fact, it has held up the right for people to pray in school. And there are clubs all over the country that pray. In schools. We just do not have out gov’t sponsored schools, paid for by everyone’s tax money, supporting one religion over another. Sounds fair for everyone. Including Christians. Remember, the prayer you want in public schools may not be the kind of prayer that you want.
      I am looking over the rest of your statement, and I am wondering which Christian colleges and universities have felt compelled to remove crosses from their buildings and grounds. Seems that our religious colleges here in the midwestern part of the country put up anything they want. Because they are private. My husband and I paid for our children to go to Catholic schools, and were glad that religion was a part of it. When they changed to public schools, we were equally glad that religion wasn’t a part of it, because we don’t want to see our freedoms melt away like that.
      I don’t have the time or inclination to comment on all of your points. suffice it to say that some of your statements were more outlandish than those I refer to.

      • Although I am an atheist, I attended a Catholic high school simply because I could get a better education there, and there was a lot of violence and racism in the local public high school. They had a mandatory theology class, where you read and interepreted passages from the bible, more as literature and as a reflectioon of the times when the book was written, rather than as a religious focus. But when I began pointing out the obvious contradictions between different passages of biblical text, such as there are three completely different absolutely last and final words that Jesus supposedly ever spoke, I was exempted from further attendance in this mandatory class, because my questions might undo years of brainwashing–I mean careful teaching–of the Catholics in that school (by the way, Hollywood resolves the discerepancy between the three different last words by having Jesus say all three in quick succession). Unlike the most conservative of Protestants, they weren’t afraid to teach us science that contradicts the bible–we even did the Miller-Brown experiment where methane, ammonia, and water ina sterilized beaker, subjjected to electricity such as lightning, produces thick gobs of DNA, “proving” that no supernatural explanation is needed for how inanimante matter becomes life (their explantion was that this was merely the miraculous mechanism by which a deity created life).I was not the only atheist, and we also had two brothers in that school who were Jewish. Kids prayed in the school if and when they wanted to, there was no set time and no required prayer, there were crosses everywhere, but nobody was FORCED to participate in prayer.

    • Good God, I laughed my ass off reading this. Hahaha. Wow, it was so good I had to read it out to some others and they also had a good laugh.

      Hitler was a Christian, and as far as replacing school prayer is concerned, he did so to enforce the citation of a declaration of loyalty to the Fuhrer, not because he was anti-Christian. Americans pledge allegiance to the flag, which is effectively the same thing. When you look up Nationalism in any country that is not Germany and the USA, you see Germany and the USA as prime examples of what that word means.

      Any school that is not publicly funded, such as a Catholic school, is free to pray as much as they want as are they free to force unbelieving students to pray simply because their parents pay tuition.

      PUBLIC schools are not allowed to pick favorite religions, or prayers, because the PUBLIC is made up of all denominations of Christianity, as well as every other religion (or lack thereof). Do you know what the Protestant parents would say if their children were instructed to say prayers of Catholic origin? It would be like the gays vs. hateful heterosexuals to the power of a thousand flaming suns of times long since passed! Baptists reading from the book of Mormon? Entertainment to last us until the rapture, whichever one you fancy!

      THAT is why PUBLIC schools do not follow the gospel of any God or religion. Considering how much the American school system hates sex education, insisting that anything other than abstinence-only be taught at home by parents at their own discretion, it’s really quite hilarious when they try to complain and base fear mongering, insulting propaganda around their abused Christian roots. Next you will tell us that God sent the shooter to Newtown, who was personally flown in by Obama, and armed to the teeth by Clinton.

      Go read a book. Like, a real book. One with facts and citations from accredited, peer reviewed sources. Until you are able to do just that, perhaps you should sit down, drink your juice box, and let the adults talk.

      Oh, and Hitler and the Nazi regime were FIERCELY opposed to abortion. Jews and homosexuals, or the genetically defective, could easily be done away with – but to bring in the master race every child of German birth had to be brought into the world. Period.

      I can’t stop laughing. Wow.

    • Apparently, Patrick is a member of – or brother in arms to – the Westboro Baptist Church nutballs.

    • I am tired of hearing that prayer is not banned from schools, only cannot be lead by school. This is not true. their have been many school kids who decided to pray on their own, such as a prayer before game, etc. and were told they cannot do this!! Teachers have been fired for wearing crosses! We Cannot say Merry Christmas, Happy Easter! don’t tell me things are banned!

      • Please document cases (State, School District and legal case file number) where teachers have been fired for wearing a cross. If such case ever really happened, there HAD to be more behind it than just the wearing of jewelery. I would like to see the legal case numbers on that because there is no way possible that incident would not be before the US Supreme Court.

      • Where do you live? I’m from upstate NY, I attended a public high school that allowed a group of students to pray around a flag pole and have a Bible study group after school on Thursdays. They weren’t directly associated with the school in any way, but no one in charge made any big to do about the whole thing.

        I believe if the person is making a big deal about praying then yes the teacher or the school should make an issue. They really shouldn’t try to call attention to themselves during a prayer and it shouldn’t be made mandatory for all students to pray during a game because it violates the constitution. Besides the Bible also has a lot to say about people who show off their praying and their so-called devoutness.

      • Tracey
        He is pulling shit out of his ass. There is no cases he can actually cite that would fit what he thinks is going on.

        In fact there was a case here where a school had a rule against jewelry and gang colors. A student went in with Rosary in one of the local gang colors and he was sent home. He was told he could not return with it on. His mother refused to let him take it off so he was out of school for several weeks as she sued the school. The court ruled the school could not prevent him from wearing it in the school.

    • If you are reading this, please stop. You will want the time spent here back. Proceeding is only a waste of time. I promise you, you will learn nothing by continuing on.

      • People’s beliefs, viewpoints and comments are fascinating in a dualistic way – both interesting and outright ugly. This statement you just posted is kind of like scaring ants away from a picnic by pouring sugar on the ground.

    • Prescott Bush, father of Pres 41 and grandfather of Pres 43, wanted to overthrow the US government and join Hitler and Germany. There was an active community of people he was working with to try achieving that goal. He should have been executed for his crimes but Roosevelt was too kind to them.

      The 1930s-1940s German government WAS NOT SOCIALIST! They were FASCISTS! You should learn the difference because, aside from everything else you posted, that make you sound stupid. People need to learn the difference between all the isms if they are going to speak about any of them.

      You are proof that our education system needs fixing and if you are a product of home schooling or a religious school then you ruin a case that either should continue to be in existence.

      • Your post makes me recall an old guy (about my age) from the local VFW who “explained” to me during the recent election campaign that the Nazis were socialists–after all, they had the word “Socialist” right there in their name! IMHO, Hitler represented himself as whatever he thought would get people to follow him–hence his references to various beliefs/connections which he felt would win over segments of the German populace. The only belief I am sure he held was the belief that Germany could & would rule the world & that he, personally, could & would rule Germany and thus eventually the world. He was perhaps the most successful demagogue the world has ever seen, but there were very few individuals or groups to which he was loyal over time; and I would be very hesitant to state where his loyalties actually lay. In that regard, to me he epitomizes the quote, “The devil can cite scripture to suit his purpose.”

      • Hitler hated socialists and communists and stated so over and over in his tome “Mein Kampf” in 1933 one of the first things he did was OUTLAW the socialist and the communist parties alltogether. The SDP and the KPD were disbanded and their leaders jailed and their assets seized. The NSDAP had nothing in common with what we think of as socialist today. Along with outlawing the socialist parties the also outlawed trade unions. That is Fascist and more resembles the Republican party of the USA today with their anti union stances and passing laws to eliminate workers collective barganing rights.

      • Yes, they had the word “Socialist” right there in their name! Just like “Best” Korea under the Kim Jong family has both “Democratic” and “Republic” right there in their name! As did East Germany when it was still a separate nation before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

      • JC H: I disagree with a couple of your points. First of all, the term “National Socialism,” used by Nazis and similar parties, did not refer in any way to what we think of as socialism. It was a term for the subjugation of individual rights to the good of the “nation,” i.e. Aryans.

        Second, Hitler’s beliefs were set out clearly in Mein Kampf in the early 1920’s and changed very little from there to the day he died. Yes, he sometimes made alliances of convenience, but his underlying world view was remarkably consistent.

      • Ken, in reference to your last paragraph, are there any school systems that are up to par according to you? If so, what are your suggestions? Just curious. I was both in Public School & then transferred to homeschooling from 5th-12th & then back to a State school for College where I was also a student athlete. I have since then coached at a wide range of schools including private, public & home at many different levels. I feel I have a good idea of the base of each. However, I am always inclined to hearing more on this subject. Thank you in advance.

    • Wow, that is one hell of a reply and typo free to boot. My guess is that you cut and pasted that from somewhere else. It is good to have throw down propaganda like this, just in case.

    • Ah…so American Liberalism now equals extreme-right wing Nazism? Nice try. But you could drive trucks through those ridiculous argument. However, I will propose one analogy between modern-day America and Nazi Germany that proves apt. Nazism (and Fascism in general) is the merger of government and private industry. Washington D.C. today is no longer only hammered by the lobbyists of private industry (formerly known as the special interests), but has in fact completely merged with them. It is not even a question whether Coca-Cola and Exxon will be at the table; they’re always there, and government organizations such as the EPA are headed and staffed by former Oil company executives and representatives. There are indeed definite parallels between 1930’s Germany and the US in the 10’s, but it has nothing to do with the druidic subculture and social welfare programs.

      • The march towards American Fascism is even worse at the state level. There is now an organization called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), whose stated purpose is to bring representatives of the business world and government together. What essentially happens in these get-togethers is that corporate bigwigs hand local legislators bills they have written, to bring home and put forth in their state senates, congresses, etc. The NRA, and America’s largest firearms merchant, Wal-Mart, are, of course, charter members.

    • Some points are good, but some are making correlations that are not there. I am a vegetarian, enviromentalist and believe in love between all humans. At the same time I am against corrupt governments, totalitarian regimes and capitalism. Yes I am against capitalism, the system you appear to embrace so much? Why? Check the children of Capitalism: Monsanto (oh look a monstrous non-government corporation) that the US government protects and even hired some of their ex-executives/employees into the FDA who will later rejoin Monsanto. Monsanto’s plans? Global control of food supply, everyone is subject to Monsanto’s control. Sounds like socialism doesnt it? Capitalism and what you call socialism (which is not real socialism) are the same thing. Whoever controls supply and money controls the world and establishes his own rules and its Capitalists. The banking system of FIAT money and DEBT RAISING FOR GROWTH are born from capitalism. Open economic textbooks and read. They are a farse. They teach capitalism as the ultimate system where profitability promotes competition and is creates motive to improve wealth and quality of life. Bullshit. How many examples do we have where corporations have influence over governments to promote their interests? How many examples do we have where offering the best solution is less profitable and hence not offered to the public? How many examples do we get where every day of products that are harmful? We could have had free energy decades ago but we dont. It doesnt go well with the interests of businessmen and the elite who got their power thanks to capitalism. We still use oil which ensures our dependence and pollutes the environment. Lets move further. The FED, financial/banking system. All of which are results of the current capitalistic system and they are the forces that work behind governments and the economic system to enslave you.Why do you thing the Bielderberg group is consisted of the most rich and successful people in Businessmen. Capitalists. Supporters of free trade. Supporters of globalization. We have corporate controlled media and media controlled by governments that handshake together to satisfy their interests to further establish globalizatio. We read and listen to the media and we are all in awe of technological enhancements and trade than in reality slowly enslave us. We in the developed world are in awe by looking at those beautiful growth numbers and we enjoy those beautiful products and services. Products that they would have never been existed if poor countries did not exist to exploit for lower costs. Countries who are often enslaved the capitalistic system. Their people never enjoy the goods and services they produce. hey get paid peanuts while the big businessmen get a big chunck into their pockets. Guatemala for example enjoys some of the highest growths in the world while at the same time has one of the most serious hunger problems in the world. Thanks to the IMF and corporate invasion to their country they lost their economic dependency. The government is not controlled by its people anymore. They produce for others instead for their country. Their government is in essence controlled by tools of capitalism.
      Who do you think funded the Nazi’s? Wasnt it the foreign banking system? Does Prescott Bush ring a bell? Whose grand and great grand children became presidents? Why are former CEO and businessmen taking control of your government and the courthouses?Is it because of socialism? No. Socialism doesnt exist to begin with. They slowly establish a system THEY call socialism, and then they use their propaganda to create confusion as to what socialism really is. Because capitalism is NOT about free choice. It only gives enough choice to create the illusion of freedom. Its a system with loopholes where the 1% globally can exploit to gain control of the rest 99%. Its a system that does propaganda and convinces that everyone has equal opportunity and has free choice and it goes hand in hand with democracy. But its far from the truth
      Secret services are controlled by big bankers. Banks and corporations create and hire private armies which commit to war crimes and not only. The government hires these private armies too….besides…when you ve got politicians with tides to corporations they will make decisions or create false flag attacks that benefit the pockets of their “freinds” and theirselves. The government does wars to support the war industry. Good stuff for businessmen and investors in that area too. The owner of the twin towers knew exactly what was going to happen. BOOM he made a nice special insurance some time before the attack and he got some pretty big amount of money. Capitalism sells successfully the impression that we freed ourselves from monarchs and oligarchs. We never did. Entertainment, misinformation and false hope that by working 10+ hours a day will eventually pay off, while we forget our fellow humans, we forget our humanity, our families, our development, we compete each other and live in constant stress.We forget the NOW. We are in a constant battle to be like the false “perfect looking supposedly successful happy celebrities and businessmen” because they fill our brains with conflicts, fear and dreamy lives that dont exist. This is what the elite wants.
      There many people like me who feel the same….now tell me…do these ideas fall in line with Nazi’s/socialists/elite plans? Or against???
      People like us believe in religious identity which should be maintained while at the same time we believe that we show understanding for all other religions and we study as much as we can from all to discover ourselves, not through dogmas (which the government and capitalists use to brainwash and control us) but through personal search for truth. I believe in a system where authority are the people and not a body of few who control the majority which Capitalisms promotes. I believe in an autonomous system where people get educated to search inside and discover who they are in order to eliminate conflict and show more compassion. I believe in an autonomous system where people’s motivations are not money but the real motive is to improve society through social offer and personal care. The opposite of what capitalism is. Our governments are going slowly against the common good not because we are transforming into what you call socialism. Its because capitalism allows this and whoever controls money, controls the world.

      • All power structures have the ability to be abused. Even a totalitarian government, headed by one supreme leader, has the capacity to be fair and altruistic – it rarely or never happens but you get my point.

        Capitalism itself is not inherently evil – people abusing the system make it so. The same can be said of socialism. I believe a proper application of both can work. I don’t believe a pile of babies in a pond of bathwater is a solution to anything – in essence, don’t outright demonize anything. Everything has the capacity for “good and evil”.

      • I totally agree but will add that “Capitalism” and “Communism” are two 20th century constructs that are no longer relevant to our World. I believe that Capitalism died out about the same time as Communism (during the 1980s). What we have now is the ILLUSION of a rational economic system but in reality is a rigged game that benefits only the 1%. Dante is right, it is the system that is the problem, not the particular politicians and individuals who make it up.

      • I stopped as soon as I started because I realized that you as many others that oppose capitalism probably have not taken the time to read the Wealth of Nations. I will begin by saying that what you call Capitalism is not capitalism. Adam Smith strictly speaks against government involment in economics and corporate involement in the state. He also speaks against corporatism. All that is wrong with capitalism makes it no longer true capitalism. This is State capitalism, much like any other Statist government of old (Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Imerial Britain, Socialist Cuba, post-revolution) is shit, and is what we all want to fight. The FED is also not a result of a capitalist system, it is a result of centralized government and its people having lost their power to fight against the government or at least the perception of such. Adam Smith also taught that cometition would occour naturally and drive the price of commodities down which it does. What you are talking about is slavery and Adam Smith, the man we call the father of capitalism, also said that this should be fought. I don’t know what text books you’re reading but you should really go read the actual literature for yourself because this is something so far from capitalism and I don’t agree with it any more than you do, but I also don’t agree with changing the system of government which we have established here which we would have to do if we went to something like anarcho-syndicalism. This country has a beautiful constitution and some of the founders had such beautiful visions for this place and I believe that this place can be saved from the hands of the monsters here through taking back some power trough direct action and imposing legislation that would seperate coporation from state and some others.

      • Dante, if a government is protecting Monsanto, you can rest assured that is not the fault of capitalism, it is business hijacking government to protect it. Capitalism itself can’t be expected to cure the woes of society, nor the nature of man. It is an economic philosophy and cannot act for itself. Errors and crimes are committed by people; protecting against them is likewise done by people.

        If any systematic problem exists, it would be in our legal system. Yet, this legal system is also the product of people seeking their own interests by government force, and not the product capitalism.

        I like Mike’s post on Feb 26. Thanks, Mike!

        I agree, Mike, we do have a beautiful Constitution. Our laws should mimic the constitution by creating a playing field where no party is promised a win by the government when there is no legitimate right tied to that win. Privileges for companies should not exist. If this were done, men could honestly pursue their own economic interests in true style without stepping on other people’s rights (real capitalism).

      • Paul Avery,

        Just like those who use money and influence to control our laws in America’s Capitalist economy, bad eggs and power seekers have always attempted to have influence over the ways that society and its laws work in Communist States. The ideal has never been reached under either system because of the greed and power trips of our leaders. Personally, I think, the attempt to create a society in which all people are equal and have equal influence over their opportunities, is much more impossible to obtain under Communist ideology than under Capitalism.

        Although we can possibly level the playing field in our American business world, it is doubtful that even this, will happen overnight. Especially since Those seeking power and influence, are always adept at entrenching their positions of power in ways not easily remedied.

        We will probably never rid ourselves completely the philosophical malady which asserts that, “All pigs are created equal, but some are more equal than others.” In the meantime we can support social justice and compassionate laws as best we can–greatfull for the warnings that were so prophetically written on the wall by George Orwell and others like him!

    • Hitler was a Catholic.

      Let us remember the wise words of Nietzsche in denouncing this horrible man:

      “I condemn Christianity. I bring against it the most terrible of accusations that ever an accuser put into words. It is to me the greatest of all imaginable corruptions […] It has left nothing untouched by its depravity. It has made a worthlessness out of every value, a lie out of every truth, a sin out of everything straightforward, healthy and honest. Let anyone dare to speak to me of its humanitarian blessing! To do away with pain and woe is contrary to its principles. It lives by pain and woe: it has created pain and woe in order to perpetuate itself.

      “It invented the idea of original sin. Invented ‘the equality of souls before God’ – that cover for all the rancor of the useless and base. It has bred the art of self-violation – repugnance and contempt for all good and cleanly instincts. Parasitism is its praxis. It combats all good red-blood, all love and all hope for life, with its anemic ideal of holiness. It sets up ‘the other world’ as a negation of every reality.

      “The cross is the rallying post for a conspiracy against health beauty, well-being, courage, intellect, benevolence – against life itself. The eternal accusation I shall write upon all walls: I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity for which no expedient is sufficiently poisonous, secret, subterranean, mean! I call it the one immortal shame and blemish upon the human race!”

      • Duh – Hitler talked exactly like Nietzsche, because he was heavily influenced by Nietzsche! You don’t know that?!?!! Actually, he used Christianity to gain power, but believed in ruthlessness & the iron will, like Nietzsche, when it came down to it. He promoted what he called “positive Christianity”, which took out the Jewish and pacifistic elements & replaced them with ideals of nationalism and “strength”. He believed in “Providence” & reincarnation. He called real Christianity flabby & weak:

        Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered April 12, 1922, and published in his My New Order:

        My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

        In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison.

        Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.

        As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice …

        And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery.

        When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited.
        [Quoted in Freethought Today April 1990.]

        Once Hitler had gained power, he began to see Christianity as a threat to the National Socialists’ domination of Germany. After 1935 his speeches and writings became more and more virulently anti-Christian; he argued that Christian worship was a sign of weakness, and that it should be replaced by reverence for the nation and the state, and of course for the National Socialist Party. However, he retained his belief in reincarnation, and his conviction that there was some supreme creative force whose will he was enacting.

        The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity … The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.

        I’ll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews.
        [Quoted from Hitler’s “Table Talks” with Bormann,
        in Hitler: A Study in Tyranny by Allan Bullock.]

      • I LOVE YOU!and pray for you! I don ‘t care what you say,God wrote a program so to speak.He gave it life and yes laws to go by and fallow.Trees,animals,oceans,earth,echo systems that take care of them selves.etc.Yes during history there are things done in Gods name that he never endorsed(free will they did it not him!!)All My God did was make the program lay out the law for man to follow,He wrote it and you and I are in the game.Play it how you want,But my God told me to love they nieghbor as thy self.what you do unto them you do to me.I’m not perfact at all I try but I fail sometimes.alot! but I have faith and it all works out I don’t know how or why but He said it will work out.and he wrote the program so I just try my best to be a good guy in life.John 3:16 thats the code or down load in his program he gave us all.It’s an upgrade called the “word”that was written in the program from the very beginning.there are signs and hints of this upgrade to come and without it down loaded into the program that God created all would be lost!!even the back up program.No one would win,No not one!For God so loved this creation of his that he sent HIS ONLY CYPHER (JESUS)that who so ever believeth in him(that means any one,even YOU!) shall not perish but have ever lasting life! That means you’ll be written in the new creation He’s going to make this time he’ll be there to answer questions for you.in this creation.He’ll be there with you.The other program was currupted when it was first down loaded to run because the operating system he used didn’t want to accept the new program he wrote.All fun aside he wrote it.you try your best to play while it’s running like any game you play in it’s parameters do what your not suppose to you get lost and have to find your way back to get more points or better options to last longer in the game.you can’t dictate your own way or do what you want.there are paths to take to win!He can deleate your player any time the program wants.God created the game your in it like it or not!He’s the creator your the creation.Mock out who you want,put down every thing,be the one every one hates because you want them too.either way it’s his creation your in it deal with it how you will.Fighting every one and every thing will only make it harder for your character to make it threw the game enjoying every thing in it that is there to see and experience,love,and touch.Your choice,Read the bible don’t just take from it what you don’t understand or have been told by others.

      • Wow, A great quote from Nietzsche!

        I agree that all of our major religions have mostly failed to create many truly loving human being.nor, bring true compassion into our world, but I think the actual founders of most of our major faiths, would not approve of how their words are used to create advantages biases and rationalizations among leaders who are usually grossly riddled with sins of their own!

        However, love is a goal and a valued emotion among Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and/or atheists who cherish human dignity and the spirit of compassion.

        The freedom riders during the 1960’s battle for civil rights, involved many brave and dedicated people willing to be beaten because they desired a world which would include real justice. All of them rallied around their cause by singing religiously themed songs like, “WE SHALL OVERCOME, and, KUMBAYA. This fact makes me believe that many religious people, or spiritual people (if you prefer) really find a sense of strength and courage by relying on faith. Unfortunately we human beings seldom acknowledge the ideals of love and faith that our Religious founders have always wanted to transmit to us.

        The words of Nietzsche are unfortunately, often true. But, I would not want to deny the many dedicated and beautiful people of faith who only want to act with love and compassion towards their fellow human beings. While we are posting our dueling opinions online, many of them are risking their lives to provide food, shelter and medicine to the victims and refugees who have faced virtual extinction, genocide and torture, for way too many years!

        There is some truth to all stereotypes and also some untruths in all of them. All of us who really attempt to love and forgive others, should receive credit for doing so, whether Hindu, Communist, atheist, or Jews etc. Let’s not create unnecessary stereotypes when we generalize about any group, or category, in our human race! We really aren’t all bad!

    • GOD BLESS YOU PATRICK! You get it.The guy or professor of hitler lovers.Just changed words and formatted his agenda to beat really hard around the bush.Every one just wikipedia Gun politics in germany.You’ll see the people he wanted to eradicate in the 1938 revisions of the gun laws.This law effectively deprived all jews of the possession of firearms or other weapons.also persons whose trustworthiness was in question by the german government were restricted from possessing a firearm.So yes he banned weapons to his foes to take them out.And people who reply against what you wrote only pick one thing to argue out of the list of facts you display.even than they twist their untruth to sound factual.people please…. just search the facts for your self!!Don’t even trust me!look it up,Our constitution is under attack NOW. because people believe what they are told!As the professor says it’s propaganda and he’s spreading his.REPEAT A LIE LONG ENOUGH IT BECOMES TRUTH TO THOSE WANTING TO BELIEVE IT.Check facts,check more than one source,wikipedia,info on,look at the federalist papers on line from our founding fathers to see there original intent and meanning for our constitutional rights.

    • In other words,if people don’t agree with ‘your’ viewpoint,they’re evil,you sir are the evil one, there is no god,there are no gods, get over it and move on…

    • Patrick, have you ever spoken with anyone who actually was present at the time Hitler came to power in 1933? Ask them: your very bald and plain world view of how and why Hitler came to power is very different from what actually happened. I feel very sorry for you being so very confused and set in your ignorance.

    • Hitler is a Darling of the racist wing of the GOP. Naziism is a extreme right wing political philosophy his propaganda operation was very much like today’s tea party-republicans he used lies not guns to enslave the German people I could list true information and rebut your true misinformation but I don’t have to folks are becoming aware of the falsehoods of your wing-nut views and you should put down the cool-aid and crack a history book a real and credible one not an Bill O’Reilly book

    • Hitler got Germany’s Economy going again in 1933. Bill Clinton got the U.S. Economy going again in 1992. OMG Bill Clinton is just like Hitler!

    • Well Pat…the answer is clear…we need to round up all these vegitarian pagan environmentalist into some sort of holding camps so they cant hurt us good god fearing americans! Only by doing so can we save our country from a hitler like…oh wait…

    • If you think it’s oppressive for your government to be secular and treat people of all faiths equally, you MUST be a Christian. Because if you were ever a member of a minority faith living under a majority Christian government you would soon find you are gravely mistaken.

    • Hitler actually promoted the use of firearms by his citizens..the Aryan ones……

      Jews, blacks, gays…… not so much.

      Thats how gun control works…… the government has a “monopoly on violence” deciding who gets guns, who does not, who gets to live, who gets to die…..

      seems safe, right?

    • Wow, 8 to 11 million jews slaughtered? First the number was 400,000 then 1 million, and when that number was not high enough the media began reporting 6 million. That’s neat that you have added many, many more to the total. Where there 11 million jews in Europe before Hitler came to power? Did he have them trucked in so he could achieve that number?

      You are totally misguided, the British, over time, have slaughtered millions upon millions of people. They are the true socialist. Churchill was war criminal.

      The American president, FDR was a socialist/commie, his war crimes were embarrassing.

      Please read something other than propaganda sometime, you might become enlightened.

    • Hey, @Patrick (or should I call you “mapsguy1955”?). Plagiarism is against the law, you know. You copied-and-pasted that verbatim, without attribution, from either the original source, or from someone who him/herself plagiarized or perhaps legitimately used (as in including referencing the source) the original source, or someone who plagiarized a plagiarizer.

      The original source is as a numbered list in an article entitled “26 Similarities Between America and Nazi Germany” authored by one Brannon Howse, an End Times prophecy preacher who runs Worldview Weekend ministries and has a talk radio show entitled “Worldview Weekend.” The article was first published in the January 2009 issue of their magazine, Worldview Weekend DIgest. When that magazine sold out, Mr, Howse published it on his website. You can read it there for free, and so can everyone else who comes here who can see what a dishonest person you are, pretending to be smart by stealing someone else’s work without even giving credit.

      The WorldView Weekend website has a full-fledged copyright notice on it. Since you are arguing the same things he is, Mr. Howse would in all probability have given you permission to quote an exerpt so long as you cited him as the author and source, but you’re supposed to ask permission first and get it in writing.

      In short, what you did here was to spread propaganda, and dishonestly at that. This, mind you, in the forum of the Propaganda Professor.

    • Holy Crapola!! You Equate Abortion and Obamacare with Nazism?!? Health Care Reform was to prevent excesses of Insurance companies and refusing to Insure based on “pre-existing conditions.” I’M in the Medical Profession and I Applaud this. Abortion?? The Jewish Bible does not recognize a Baby as living until the beginning of the First Trimester. Now, I respect that abortion, by it’s very nature is controversial, but you Right Wingers are against Condoms and The Pill, too, which Prevents Abortions and unplanned pregnancies. And we Liberals only want Euthanasia for the Brain Dead and folks who are terminally ill or really suffering and WANT to End their lives. It is YOU who are Fascist for denying them their Dignity.

      • And how’s that Obamacare working out for you. Everything negative predicted about it by conservatives has come true. Premiums are increasing exponentially not nearly enough younger healthy people signing up to offset the cost of older less healthy people that do sign up. The list goes on too many to list here. It’s not healthcare insurance it’s just another government giveaway program that we can’t afford. Even AARP who was one of the biggest proponents and who got into healthcare because of Obamacare is now saying they are pulling out because they are afraid the program will go bust leaving them holding the bag. . Imagine that who would have guessed. You lefties aren’t going to be happy until you bankrupt this country just like you’ve already done in the big cities. Even then you won’t stop just like in Greece, an economic basket case yet the people are calling for more socialism,

      • Mr. Campbell,

        One needs to realize that medical costs have been rising steeply in recent years, and that the ACA is not designed to dictate the costs of medical care. What the itself does, often leads to such rapidly increasing costs. What Obamacare does is provide some basic ground rules and provide subsidies that then bring insurance within the grasp of many lower income people who have previously been denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, caps on medical expenses, or simply costs that are too great for them to bear.

        Since the various exchanges that are available, may offer lower prices in response to competition, one would expect their responses to such competition, to keep prices at affordable levels. However, many Republican states, with Republican governors who have the support of rubber-stamp Republican legislatures, have not only turned down the chance to create local exchanges, (which has then only placed a greater burden on Federal exchanges) but they have also denied prudent Medicaid expansions which would have greatly relieved the State’s own medicaid costs—since almost all of their Medicaid expenses would have initially been picked up by the federal government. Thus, one has to suspect Republican sabotage as a major force which has left no stone unturned, in its ruthless attempts to cause the ACA fail.

        If one reads the responses of fact checking websites which have consistently disproved the many dire predictions about the monetary costs of Obamacare made by the GOP, almost all of them involve lies and/or misinformation which have been deliberately spread by Republicans. So one has to admit that much of the rough waters encountered by the new law, have been placed it the way by partisan interests, partisan lies and partisan propaganda.

        What all of this has to do with Hitler and gun regulations in Nazi Germany, I will never know? Personally I think Republicans are closer to resembling a fascist mentality than democrats have ever been. But that kind of constant meme is not often a valid or constructive way to evaluate and understand human history–so I just had to answer some of your anti-Obama tirades, which seems so intent on vilifying the beliefs of anyone who simply help give the poor a means to take care of their own health.

        All of the alternative plans offered by the GOP, are so far only as good as their resemblances to similar benefits already part of the ACA. However the only way to provide a large enough customer insurance pool is with a federal mandate. Mitt Romney knew this, but in his situation, he was the one who offered to negotiate with a Democratic state legislature. His health care reforms remain effective to this day–so what does that say about which party is more willing to compromise?

      • But Mr. Johnson, that is not the governments job to interfere like that. That is something local charities and other programs can get involved in, possibly even the local government, but not the Federal Government. It’s just not their job.

      • Sorry that you don’t like like my use of the word but I explained what I meant by it. What word or term would you have used that would better describe what I meant by it as explained in my post. . How about the word symbol is that better? I thought this was a discussion about Hitler and gun control not word usage.

      • Personally I wouldn’t have said it at all. . . .and if you’re gunna get nasty about particulars, why aren’t you talking about Hitler and gun rights???😉 What I responded to had nothing to do with gun rights or Hitler, you were talking about abortion, which I also disagree with. Abortion is murder and that’s the only way you can truthfully put it.

        P.S. Yes I know I’m not talking about Hitler or gun rights, I’m merely responding to what you said, so let’s not look for little things to throw each other down. Thanks!🙂

      • I was not getting nasty, And I did not change the topic somebody else did, about healthcare. After responding to it I realized that was a mistake. When he wrote back I responded telling him to find another forum to talk about healthcare, He was a lib big on abortion and obamacare not me. I’m an anti-abortion pro-gun conservative.

      • Sorry I must have read your comments wrong then, because it sounded like you were supporting healthcare and abortion. My bad.

      • You can argue until you are blue in the face to justify but we simply can’t afford any more entitlement programs. The government does not belong in the healthcare business. As a matter of fact it doesn’t belong in many of the non-defense matters it’s presently involved in. We have a trillion dollar plus annual spending deficit and an almost 20 trillion dollar national debt. We are rapidly approaching financial implosion. The healthcare insurance problem was not as bad as liberals made it out to be. They made it sound like people were dropping off like flies when that was not the case. Another massive federal entitlement program was not the answer as proven by the chaos and increased costs caused by Obamacare. We need a free market solution. Please don’t bother responding. Our differences on this are just too great. If you fail to see the need to cut back the size of the government then there is no sense in you and I having a discussion.
        .

      • So, since health care is an unessential, I’m guessing your solution for those who are too poor or sick to get insurance is to “die and reduce the surplus population”. Happy Thanksgiving, Mr. Scrooge.

      • I’ll tell you the same thing I told another who wanted to talk about healthcare. I signed on to talk about Hitler and gun control, not healthcare. I don’t know how this turned into a healthcare discussion but I don’t want to talk about it. If you wish to talk about it you’d be better off finding another thread or a different blog where the topic is healthcare. And I also suggest that you refrain from insulting those who disagree with you. You’re like a petulant child. Please don’t respond because I don’t want to talk to you.

      • Mr. Campbell,

        You’re right that healthcare is not directly related to gun regulations nor to the specific issues involved with the 2nd Amendment, but the way it becomes relevant is in the context of what our government can and cannot do, i.e. The government has sought to regulate weapons, and the government has also sought to provide healthcare for every member of a grossly under-insured public. But, the common denominator found in both, is in regards to whether these government activities reflect its constitutional duty to promote the general welfare of its citizens, and whether that endeavor is a valid use of our government.

        I also don’t think that (strictly speaking) healthcare is a right, but the government does not specifically guarantee any of us the right to be protected from armed mass shooter in movie theaters either! Fortunately though the government tries to do so. That’s what justifies discussing both these types of human welfare in regards to what the government should or shouldn’t do about them!

        The point I am making is that the government has both the duty to honor the 2nd amendment, as well as to protect the pursuits of life, liberty and happiness among its citizens—as clearly protected in the 14th Amendment. And without protecting human life by specifically taking measures to reduce gun crimes and mass murders, how can the government ever hope to even come close to fulfilling that important responsibility?

        None of our Constitutional rights or Amendments have been established as if written in stone, nor WITHOUT the guarantee that the Supreme Court has the right to modify them over the passage of time. When there is a need for public safety which can be preserved under our legal system. That’s when the Court has a clear right to define and clarify the intentions of the 2nd amendment. If guns were not often the weapons of choice by those with sick or criminal minds, we would not need to worry, but since we do need to worry, the government can rightfully exert its influence.

        Personally, my comments were in response to some anti-Obama rants from you—something which also might be considered not directly relevant to the issue of gun control, or exactly what the 2nd Amendment protects. Sorry if I deviated from the topic, I think Obama with all his faults, is one of the best Presidents we have ever had, and so I am prone to come to his defense.

        Surely you must agree that the President is not responsible for the avalanche of financial catastrophes that landed on his desk shortly after being elected? It was primarily two unfunded wars in the middle east, at a time when Bush was more interested in preventing tax increases, as well our government ignoring the outright thievery perpetrated by big banks and corporate executives, who recklessly sought profits above all else—no matter who else had to pay for it, or how many lobbyists had to be enlisted to assure their monetary gains!

        Yes you are correct that this forum is about gun regulations, and particularly those supposedly instituted by Hitler. But that fact will not deter me from occasionally bringing up a tangentinal point when I believe one is warranted. I’m tired of hearing conservative ideologues rave about one of the most compassionate Presidents we have ever had, while portraying him as being like Hitler, for supposedly wanting to confiscate weapons owned by those who are giving themselves too much importance by thinking that he would even want to do that at all—or even get away with it, if he tried? Scenarios which assert such claims are utter baloney!

        If you don’t want to hear me say that, then don’t read my comments and please go on making your own—either way my 1st Amendment rights do not exist merely to have them submitted to regulation from the likes of you! I also am a bit confused since I have directed my comments to both His Bondservant and you, as well. So perhaps you are taking too many of them as being specifically directed at you, and assuming that you are important enough to to be the singular person they are directed towards in the first place?

      • Nice! The government shouldn’t be funding any programs like these. Their job is to defend this country and the people in it, instead they throw around tax payer money, investing it in programs that in essence buy votes from people by giving them handouts. Not. . . I repeat not the governments job!

      • Mr Campbell,

        For someone who claims his goal is to talk only about gun regulations in Hitler’s Germany, this and several of your comments seem to diverge strangely into condemnations of “entitlement,” programs and of Obamacare in particular. If you desire,here is a link to a well respected website’s assessments of the supposed massive increases in health care costs, supposedly and exclusively, in response to the ACA. After reading it I hope we can get back to the discussion at hand, and not a vindictive attempt to blame nearly anything and everything possible, on President Obama’s supposed misuses of power:

        http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2014/sep/29/republican-party-florida/health-insurance-costs-are-skyrocketing-under-obam/

      • Responding to it was a mistake. As a matter of fact I just finished writing back to someone who saw my post and was upset that I was talking off topic. I do not wish to talk about this with you any further. Go find somebody else to debate the issue.

      • Your entitled to your own opinion, but one thing that bothers me is that you speak for the entire liberal viewpoint, in your statement of “and we Liberals only want . . .”. You may feel that way, but that’s not how every other liberal feels, many are honest people that just don’t understand what their actions could bring about, but there are those who truly have evil intent. Just watch the generalizing.🙂

      • His Bondservant,

        I respectfully disagree with your beliefs about what the government can and cannot do. The Preamble says that part of the role played by our government and its Constitution, is to promote the common welfare. In other words the government is allowed to take measures that might alleviate suffering and hardships for certain segments of its people.

        I shudder to think what would have been the fate of the Civil Rights movement if southern States, in response to the opinions of their leaders, and the bias of their populaces, had been able simply deny voting rights for a huge segment of the population. Thank God that the Federal government finally got involved and ordered Southern governors to make sure that Freedom riders were assured safe passage, and that schools, lunch counters, and city buses, as well as numerous other businesses and institutions were open to all American citizens. This was one extremely important case, where the government stepped up to provide for the common welfare, when State governments refused, and willfully failed to do so.

        One also has to wonder about the fate of our black citizens if the south had been allowed to secede from the Union, and therefore, never banish the corrupt institution of slavery. Thanks to the role of a strong central government we have preserved a nation including fifty states, which each have many lawful options when it comes to the wishes of their leaders, and the people that elected them. Yet if the federal government had no power to enforce federal law according to the constitution, our union would have fallen apart long ago, and the constitution itself would not have been worth the paper it is written on!

        The government does not have the right to dictate morality, but thank God it can dictate what actions to take when any of us try to dictate our own social laws and norms to all others—in violation of the 14th Amendment!

        Expecting charities to take care of those who are infirm or suffering from chronic illnesses, is a noble idea, and the process of donating to charity has been flourishing for hundreds of years. However, charity alone has never been able to handle the many needs of those it tries to help. Nursing home care, and medical care, present astronomical costs at the ends of most of our lives, so ask yourself if you would really be able to provide the hundreds of thousands of dollar needed to care for an ill parent? This was the conventional idea centuries ago, but it was attainable only by those with the time and resources to take care of family members–the rest were tossed into woefully deficient institutions which did very little to ensure the quality of a loved ones life.

        I appreciate the dedication of anyone who is willing and able to fulfill the role of caretaker for the sick and aged, but not all of us have the money or time to do that, and are in fact, completely unable to do anything near what is required.

        Libertarian ideals sound good on paper and in novels, but they will always favor the halves, not the halve nots. Perhaps we should all actively detain criminals and stand guard over them in our own homes. That might relieve the tax burden of hard working people, but it just can’t be done! I will grant you the right to discuss any attempts to institute, the KINDS of governments you think we need–but NOT the idea that only minimal bare bones types of state and local laws should be operational! The more complex a society becomes the greater its need to use the government in order to effectively promote our COMMON welfare. And besides, entitlements are often given to those who have worked hard all of their lives or who just cannot physically provide for their own needs. So in that sense, any of us who have ever had our wages withheld for government funding, have earned the future benefits that we receive. Employers pay for part of it, but they also gain the benefits that come from the labor forces that they hire. If not, why do they have the need to hire anyone? Can’t they do it on their own? Take another guess!

        The question asked by the POP, involves whether megalomaniacs like Hitler would truly have been kept from assuming absolute power if unlimited guns had been available to unlimited numbers of people in Hitler’s Germany, but most of us agree that his most powerful weapon was a cunning genius for disseminating propaganda.

        Personally I do not object to having a second amendment right to bear arms for personal protection, but we also need to be responsible for preventing those who should not have weapons, from being so easily able to purchase them. There is a point where the public welfare has to take precedence over personal freedom, since freedom without accompanying responsibilities often prove disastrous.

        Whether guns are beneficial to the public is one question, but the POP has provided plenty of evidence that Hitler was not really a rampant gun confiscator, and never even gave the speech he is so commonly believed to have made. And it seems that he did not completely banish Jews from having weapons, just from operating businesses which sold them. Its also a good question to ask whether a fully armed Jewish population would have lasted very long against the sinister power of the third Reich? And another good thing to note is that ordinary people who own weapons, quite often use them for unethical, and even criminal pursuits!

        We don’t have to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but we do need to regularly change the bath water if our babies are to be born healthy and therefore, live free!

      • I’m not going to debate healthcare with you any further but to say again healthcare is not a right. The preamble does not set forth rights. If the framers intended to make healthcare a right they would have had included it in the bill of rights along with the right of free speech, the right to bear arms etc. .To solve the problem of people who couldn’t afford healthcare does not need the massive entitlement program that Obamacare is. It could have been solved simply by making those people eligible for medicaid. I am not saying that’s the answer but covering these people under medicare could be done for for a mere fraction of the cost. Obamacare is so screwed up and cumbersome that it can’t be fixed. It has to be repealed and started over with a clean piece of paper. Please don’t respond to this about healthcare. I will not respond. If you want to talk about healthcare go to a healthcare blog. I don’t mean to be rude but I signed up for this blog to talk about the piece on Hitler and guns.

    • Sorry, but I see no reason to believe that the Jews in Germany, with what weapons they had available, would have staved off a much better equipped NAZI army, particularly given that they (the Jews) were rather pacifistic. It could have resulted in a great deal more bloodshed, but that doesn’t mean it would have resulted in a Jewish victory. The notion that armed citizens are likely to fend off an oppressive government is mostly just another fantasy bubble surrounding the heads of gun fanatics.

      • What is it with reactionary responses and bad spelling/grammar? Is there a school where you learn all of this at once?

      • That is not the point. An armed populace causes problems for an army, the army will win but many will die and the government will have destroyed it’s economic base and some of it’s infrastructure. The ultimate scenario for a tyrannical government is to have a submissive helpless populace and selectively kill those that it wants with a minimum of miltary loss.

      • I don’t think the necessity was that the Jews had to “win” anything by being armed and resisting being herded into a ghetto and then stuffed into cattle cars headed for butchery.
        An armed,serious resistance would have been impossible for the rest of the world to act as if it had no idea there was anything going on.And that’s exactly what WE here in the U.S. did.Because it was politically expedient at the time,we pretended to know nothing.
        And if the rest of the world is to be believed,NO ONE really knew the full extent of the obscenity that was NAZI Germany.Why,even the Polish farmers living within yards of the camps,the same people who daily had to brush strangely oily ash from their equipment,well they swore they didn’t know anything about it either.Clear up the logic in this for me,I’m not following this.A govt. which has long blamed its economic failures on a specific group of citizens,a group some people even today characterize as “relatively pacifistic” is singled out as ineligible to own firearms for the good of the people.That makes some sense to you? People you don’t believe capable of defending themselves need to be denied arms? which side of the mouth do we listen to here?
        You know why the Nazis denied Jews the right to own firearms? Not because the Wehrmacht feared losing any type of armed conflict with them,but because they knew it would attract worldwide attention.And attention to the siege of Warsaw at that time was the last thing Hitler,Goebbels,Himmler or any of Dolph’s other merry band of brothers wanted.The “silent nations”,primarily the U.S. would not have been able to play Sgt. Schultz the way we did for 3-4 years until Japan finally forced us off the fence.
        Sorry,I know you like to feel superior to everyone who disagrees with you,or even anyone who may not totally agree,but if you honestly believe that any Nazi policy specifically singling out Jews for separate treatment from the “average citizen” was anything less than part of its plan for extermination,your intellectual disconnect is either sad,or disingenuous.
        Feel free to attack my grammar,I’ll admit now that I didn’t graduate from college.
        Ironically though,there’s a term in the vernacular that’s generally applied to those who do that in attacking an opinion.

      • I’ve never said that the Jews SHOULD NOT have been permitted to own firearms; merely that I doubt it would have made a difference in the long run. And I stick by that assessment, despite your point about the message it would have sent to the rest of the world — which, incidentally, is a very interesting observation.

        And it isn’t my style to attack people’s spelling and grammatical errors — we all make them, including me. I made a tongue-in-cheek exception just to emphasize how ridiculous the poster’s personal attack on me was. You’ll notice that his comment didn’t really give me anything of substance to respond to.

      • Sorry to interrupt here, but there is a discussion within the Holocaust Studies community which is often boiled down to the following question: “If the Gestapo had been met at Jewish homes by men willing to shoot one Gestapo agent, before he was killed, would the Gestapo have eventually given up?” Those who pose this question wonder if the passivity with which Europe’s Jews met the Nazis made their deaths too cheap. There is no question, of course, that the Nazis could have killed anyone and everyone. It should also be noted that Saddam Hussein forced Iraqis to keep AK-47s in their homes in order to make them fear one another.

      • Interesting question and interesting debate. There’s no doubt that the Jews could have put up more of a fight, especially if they’d been allowed easy access to weapons. Would it have made a difference in the final result? I don’t see any evidence that it would. It would have made the whole process a lot messier, for sure.

      • “If the Gestapo had been met at Jewish homes by men willing to shoot one Gestapo agent, before he was killed, would the Gestapo have eventually given up?”

        This question bothers me because it suggests that the Gestapo wouldn’t have changed their tactic to avoid being shot themselves. Further, why would they have eventually given up if only one of them was getting shot. I know it’s fun to think that groups of people we don’t like are also completely stupid, but it has no real world application.

      • So, you’re saying that if only black folks had more guns in the South the KKK would never have bombed their churches and lynched them from trees?

      • While I do not have any care in the world to argue what Hitler said or didn’t say… I will reply to your above comment that citizens with guns would not have prevented the holocaust.

        Perhaps not. It would have made it more difficult on the other hand. Waco has nothing to do with a national effort as it was a single group. You can push your agenda all you like and be content that you can convince yourself. But I would rather die with pride in an attempt to ensure my children inherit the same freedoms previous generations provided me. I would do the same with any right. That’s what it means to me to be an American.

      • I would remind the gun nuts that many citizens in Rwanda did own guns, but over a million of them were rounded up and hacked with machettes while the rest of the world watched and did nothing. The government weapon of choice, as it was for Hitler, was propaganda, in this case telling people on the radio to go hack their neighbors to bits. Guns make little difference against the overwhelming, outnumbering force of a brutal totalitarian government armed with the power of propaganda. Can you not see that the gun manufacturers are using propaganda to make us want our teachers to be armed to the teeth, to majke schools even more of a war zone, so they can sell more guns and make more profits, even though thety know MORE guns in circulation won’t make us any safer? Nobody in the gun lobby is propsoing ANY solution to the increasing violence — such as restoring the budgets for after-school programs as another way for students to spend their time and channel their energies besides joining violent gangs and participating in drive-by shootings — no gun lobbyist is suiggesting creating better-paying jobs so parents don’t have to work 2 or 3 jiobs just to put food on the table and would be able to actually spend time raising their kids to be good citizens — the gun lobby’s ONLY solution to violence is selling even more guns and increasing their profits. And calling everyone with a better idea another Hitler.

      • Somewhat true, there were more than a few Jewish families who were armed, including veterans of the first world war. I’m not aware of much armed resistance being enacted in Germany however due to the lack of knowing what was coming, indeed some Jews supported the party in the days prior to their incarceration, and given the feelings running rampant some were delighted to be removed, believing they would be assisted in leaving the country for Israel or somewhere else safe from anti-Semitic attacks (which ironically at the time didn’t really exist anywhere in the world as the Jews had bad reputations for a variety of reasons mostly undeserved).
        However calling it a NAZI army is very insulting overall.
        While some of the Wehrmacht were staunch members of the NSDAP a far larger amount were not members at all. The Gestapo (Secret State Police which eventually were merged into the SS) were not military by any means, and the SS or Schutzstaffel were a paramilitary group from the 1920s and absorbed the German police, and got formed into military units as well, which were called the Waffen-SS.
        Now in theory the SS were formed of party members BUT and these are facts a lot of people ignore or are ignorant of due to education, there were a lot of foreign nationals in the Waffen-SS and many Nazis actually supported the party because Hitler’s policies (please note the systemic eradication of Jews and other undesirables [including Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals and others) was never a public policy) were seen as the best way to save their countries from the depression that occurred after the first world war, many families across the continent were starving and the push of the NSDAP truly was remedying this in Germany and as a result strengthening her neighbours prior to the second world war.

      • 9 words: Read about it. And how did it turn out? (Sometimes truth takes a few more words, but the intellectual strain is worth the effort.)

      • I would disagree that the army would win. I have no idea where you all went to school but do they not teach world history anymore? I don’t understand the need for the gun fanatics name calling. For one with probably only idealism and no practice, that is a lot of conviction. Further more, being a former infantry marine I feel I can say with certainty there are a lot of us that are well trained in the art of war that do not agree with the Statist way government is going and if this civil war mobilizes will gladly fight along side civilians and so will those that are active duty right now. Anyway, I will agree with one point. If all Jews were armed, they probably would still have been killed. You also have to think that he still didn’t have that much money or men when all this started, not until just before he started to invade Poland.
        On to my second point. Really? Have you never read of common people defeating a government? How nialistic are you people? What kind of world do you want to live in? When I was growing up the people that I called my heros were those who stood up and fought with their life for their freedom. Ernesto “Che” Guevara? They won by force and the gun. The French revolution of 1789? They won and won freedom from an oppressive monarchical religious state. The Bolshevik revolution? The won and for ever destroyed the czarist system in Russia. Sadly, the workers lost control to a Statist government. These are just three examples of many in which the people have defeted their own governments army.

      • I agree with you, but you do say you disagree that an army would win. What we see with our modern warfare is, after a military victory, the army settles into an occupation and enforces a status quo. If it needs to, it will escalate force to put down an uprising, but it never “gets the job done” to the extent that it can just leave, without years of wrangling over timetables. Spreading democracy is a liberal notion, but we spread it as far as we have to to exploit the country as long as possible, and no further than that. It goes double for comparing the US to Afghanistan. A “concerned group of deer hunters” is not going to stand up to military force. Furthermore, we are already so comfortable and cowed by our government, it doesn’t need to physically fight us. It has won a propaganda victory over us, and, just like in Afghanistan, voices that bring up a conversation that’s not officially sanctioned will find themselves put down forcefully, whether in the media and psychologically through misdirection and ridicule or militarily. This is why we can’t have nice things.

      • There was an armed Jewish resistance movement. They may not have gotten rid of the Nazis all by themselves but I think they managed to stay out of the labor camps, at least to some extent. At that point in history, if you were Jewish and European, staying alive was a victory in itself.

        Even an extreme difference in firepower and weapons technology can be made up somewhat with sheer determination and guts. The Viet Cong didn’t have the U.S. on their side, but they won the war for all intents and purposes. We shouldn’t have won the Revolutionary War, and we almost didn’t, but look, here we are. The South lasted a lot longer during the Civil War than it had any right to do. Then there are the various terrorists in the Muslim world fighting off Americans with homemade explodey devices. And so on and so forth.

        Patrick is an idiot, but you overestimate the willingness of most conquering armies to completely wipe out the people they’re invading. They’ve got to get cheap labor from somewhere.

        I also realize this whole conversation is two years old but you never know, someone might decide to read it later.

      • I don’t believe I overestimated or underestimated anyone here, though I may not have been thorough enough. See the two sequels to this article.

      • You hit the nail on the head: They were pacifists. Even if they’d had the same weapons as the government they probably wouldn’t have used them.
        But I think if I found myself in their shoes, I’d fight back in spite of the odds.
        American gun owners and enthusiasts, (many of whom can spell and tie together words to make passable sentences) are as a rule, not pacifists.

    • Do you really think that the Jews were the first or the only people put into camps or exterminated by the Nazi regime. Hitler started putting his political enemies into forced labor camps YEARS before he rounded up the Jews. My Grandfather was put in a camp for not saluting and being a member of the real socialist party in Germany the SPD. Hitler incarcerated people to provide free labor for the corporations the Socialists and Communists, members of the Freemasons and also people who were members of Freethinkers clubs (atheists) from the time he took office in 1933. Kristalnacht, the beginning of the genocide of the Jewish people didnt happen until 1938. In fact most of the Jews he killed were killed OUTSIDE of Germany. While the others he worked to death were INSIDE Germany years before he started his invasions of other nations.

      • This is true, the former Chancellor of Austria was placed in Dachu (I can’t spell that properly) for a while before it became a death camp. I took care of a man who escaped Germany thanks to the Communist party, which also helped his mother hide, who was also held in Dachu until mid 1939. Of course the conditions weren’t much better than they were when it became a death camp and they didn’t care much for keeping Kosher.

    • Patrick, why is it that when liberals suggest even the most basic of gun control laws, you gun nuts start crying like a bunch of babies and screaming about how Barack Obama (or whatever liberal is popular at the time) is Hitler and the how the government coming to take your guns away? The United States will never pass a law making it illegal for ALL civilians to own guns. Even if they did, you could easily get your precious guns on the street, just like all the criminals are currently doing.

      True, there are a few lunatic liberals out there who want to ban all guns (just like the lunatic conservatives who think the president is a socialist and the reincarnation of Hitler, and that the US is five minutes away from being WWII Germany. However, the rest of us are trying to have a reasonable discussion about how to allow law-abiding, psychologically fit people to own weapons to hunt with (and for personal protection), while lowering gun violence and crime, and hopefully making mass murder more difficult.

      Have you ever noticed that as guns were made to hold more bullets and fire them more quickly, the number of mass shootings has gone up exponentially? In countries with strict gun laws, or where civilians are only allowed to have reasonable weapons (I mean seriously, what is anybody going to do with an A47 except shoot a whole bunch of people?).

    • Are you actually the idiot you profess yourself to be, spouting such crap? Even if you were to take an extremely large figure such as 6,000,000 Jews with submachine guns, what chance would they have against Hitler’s tanks, artillery, warplanes, 500 pound bombs, etc?

      • Jim, are you saying that if you know you cannot win, you should never fight? I mean this about life in general. I would like to know your stance on this. I understand you are speaking of the Jews vs Hitler’s reign, however, I am curious as to whether, or not, you would also take this and attest to it in the majority of your life and worldview as well.

    • Sorry Patrick, you’re so blinded by the bible crap you just can’t make any sort of rational conclusion. You exist to hate and you can’t understand why you are the way you are. It eats you up. People like you beat the bible on the table and at the same time hold up your guns to show you are powerful. Your entire life is against what your Jesus stood for. He would no sooner shoot an intruder than he would recognize the modern day church. I feel sorry for you. A life of ignorance.

      • Well said Mask, my mother and I have been saying the very same thing. People who latch on to the Bible and call themselves Christians, yet INSIST on having firearms to “protect” themselves, obviously do not know Jesus Christ or ANY of his teachings, or just choose to live in the Old Testament. I put my FAITH in God, and when it is my time to leave this Earth, there will be NOTHING that I can do about it, as it is part of the Plan that God has put in place for me. I was raised a Lutheran, went to elementary school in the Lutheran church, and I cannot ever remember being taught such hate and bitterness as I see from so many that call themselves Christians, in my mind, the Holy Trinity is some where shaking their heads in disgust.

    • Patrick, the Jews in Warsaw DID have guns. The Nazis had more and bigger guns.

      You really are a fountain of BS, Patrick.

    • Talk about an overly simplistic view of what happened to the Jewish people. You are obviously NOT Jewish, so you do not understand all of the things that transpired during WWII against the Jewish people. It was way more than removing their access to guns. They lost their property, businesses, bank accounts, family heirlooms, right to assemble, right to practice their religion, right to move around in cities, let alone Country.

      There have been plenty of civilizations that massacred others without taking away guns. Any larger Army has the potential to out perform another. Americans defeated the Brits twice with smaller forces.

      To say the Holocaust would never have happened shows a glaring minimization of the event. Until you understand it better, please stop using it as proof of your position.

    • Patrick, you are a fool with a computer.
      Lets start by remembering there were Jewish people with guns fighting a resistance, as there were people in France fighting a resistance. They were not very successful because they were far out gunned. Their weapons were nothing compared to the German war machine. They held the Germans off but would never have been able to hold out forever had England, The US and Russia not been there backing them up with military equipment.
      If they had been better armed from the beginning it would have allowed Hitler to call them terrorists, traitors or a host of other things and they would have lost the PR battle from the word “go.” They would have just been there trying to “overthrow a dully elected government” and we would have stood back and let Hitler deal with his criminal elements. How much longer would it have taken before we would have acknowledged the crimes he committed?

    • While I have qualms about recommending a Roman Polanski film, “The Pianist” graphically illustrates the point P.O.P is making: an armed group of civilians has little chance against an army. The Jews in the Prague ghetto had guns and made a stand; the Germans responded with tanks. It shouldn’t be too hard to figure out who prevailed. And don’t presume to respond with the argument that if the Jews had tanks the outcome would have been any different.

      • You cannot make a comparison of the Jews in a ghetto to Americans today. It is a tactcal folley, a complete mistake. There are to many of us. I don’t care if you brougt tanks. It would take too long to work your way across America and by that time we could have support from another country in here. There are not large countries that would support us, but large enough. Again, what about the Mujahideen in Afghanistan defeating the Russian army in the ’80s? A perfect example of how an armed group of civilians has a chance against a modern army.

      • Joseph DePue–

        Tanks? Really? And having to drive them across the country? It may have escaped your notice that there are military bases and armories in pretty much every state, and that the US government has many weapons that would be more efficient and effective than tanks: if they wanted to, they could be going drone on your ass right now. As for the mujahadeen, it’s not realistic to compare a largely indigenous guerrilla group fighting an outside force unfamiliar with the terrain–and having little personally at stake on the outcome–with a widely separated, loosely (if at all) organized group of paranoiacs/conspiracy theorists who are as likely to turn on each other as to advance on Washington. And if you expect Wayne LaPierre to lead you into battle, I’m afraid you’ll be disappointed: he’ll be busy counting his money & denying any responsibility for the chaos he helped enable.

        I am curious, however, as to what “big enough” countries you expect to join your gun-nut revolution: please enlighten me–all that comes to mind initially are the Mexican and Colombian drug cartels.

        Excuse me if my criticism is a little on the harsh side: I’ve been reading a book on the apparent increase in psychopathic personalities, and coming to this discussion right afterward is quite an illustration of the phenomenon.

      • First of all you used the idea of tanks on Jews so I responded to such. Secondly, again, I am no gun nut and the use of this name calling just goes to show that there are as many on one side that are as ill as there are on the other. If you want to have an intelligent conversation and accomplish things, that is not the way to do it. Next, I’m not going to name countries at this time as it doesn’t matter, but if you had any sense of world political climate you would realise that there are those that would see us return to a much more laisse faire foriegn policy, to a more real capitalistic economy and to a more democratic society. They have been pleading for something to happen and for us, the people, to do something. I also don’t give two craps about LaPierre minus the fact he is the only voice in debate for reasonable gun control. This “paranoia” has nothing to do with gun control, it started much before this and the “left” used to be on our side, if none of you remember. Now that the issue is gun control, the neo-liberals have started this “gun-nut” name calling and buying in to this idea and forgetting about the rest of the issues that are just as dangerous and that this is where we, the classical liberals, want to draw the line. The idea that we cannot defeat our own army, I believe, is a poor, nialistic perseption forced upon people by a statist nation. You have seen this in societies past. No one ever thought it would be possible. The French countrymen and peasants didn’t think that they would be able to defeat a real army, but they did. So did the Bolsheviks and the Cubans. In history we have learned, that missles and bombs, unless nuclear, mean nothing without ground troops. They will have to fight us one on one and there are enough of us that are prior infantry and those active duty that would quit the infanrty before killing americans. They can drop bombs all they want but they don’t own the ground until they put men on the ground nor are we really “dead” until they prove it by doing a battle damage assesment. Check into the Bosnian bombings. The UN dropped bombs for weeks then they went in and they were still met with a massive resistance. It would be obvious that any revolutionary group that hoped to return this country to its original principals would have to employ guerilla tactics and call to an established nation, probably that has sufferd at the hands of these neo-liberal foriegn policies this century, as the Mujahideen did to the americans and had given to them diferent weapons to engage helicopters. It is in no way impossible thoug and anyone who argues otherwise argues soley out of idealism, not practice.

    • By many accounts, one of the nations with the lowest rate of private gun ownership is Tunisia. Odd that they were able to bring down their government (and touch off the whole “Arab Spring” with NO Second Amedment!

    • Patrick,

      In England guns are only owned by a relatively few civilians who satisfy the legal requirements made on owners. The general populace does not own weapons, and even the police usually use billy clubs to keep the peace–weapons are only used by authorities when that is the most urgently needed response. So far, I haven’t heard of England’s citizens being massacred by a malevolent government, and I don’t expect such an assault to occur in my life time. There are probably many other nations and other examples if one looks for them.

      Again though, the right to own guns for self defense does not necessitate the availability of owning rapidly firing weapons with extremely large magazine capacities, or which are much too easily accessible by the public. I wouldn’t expect to easily own a tank or a nuclear bomb, just because I might suspect my government of threatening actions, or of conspiring to enslave its people–mainly because individuals owning such weapons would potentially pose a much more serious threat than any kind of government could!

      Straw purchases should not be so easily made, gun shows need to be subjected to more strict regulations, and buyers and sellers on the internet need to be more honest and more constrained by reasonable safeguards. Its true that some governments may be threats to their people—but not all of them—and not often those who enforce human rights, nor those democracies in which politicians must win the popular vote in order to rule. If the President so much as mentioned any mass confiscations that President would find him, or herself, in danger of being impeached, before you or I could say, “semi-automatic assault weapons!”

      • You didn’t say but the English also don’t have the right of self-defense or the right to protect their property. Ask Tony Martin, the Englishman who went to prison for shooting an intruder in his own home, about that. The founding fathers declared independence not because the British were malevolent but because they were tyrants. The second amendment was inserted in the constitution to give citizens the means to defend themselves and to deal with future tyrannical governments. Britain has no constitution to guarantee rights like we do here. Rights there are what Parliament says they are and can be taken away by fiat simply by passing a new law. How nice but no thank you. In other words the British are still tyrants. Old habits are hard to break. While you and many of your anti-gun liberal friends may think the British system is superior most people in this country would disagree. The British are friends best kept at a distance. And don’t be silly we are talking about small arms not tanks or nuclear weapons.

        So you say that large capacity magazines are not needed for self-defense. I disagree as would anyone who has ever had to defend themselves with firearms. And what do you mean by rapid fire? A semi-automatic fires one round for every trigger pull. That’s not rapid fire. Fully automatic machine guns that fire multiple rounds with one trigger pull are considered rapid fire but they are already illegal (except under special federal license too expensive and hard to obtain). You state that guns are too accessible by the public. You can’t be serious about that. You make it sound like there is no control over the legal sale of firearms. To the contrary, the sale of firearms is tightly controlled by the federal government through licensed Federal Firearm Dealers. You’re trying to create a problem where none exists. A semi-automatic with a magazine large enough to hold as many or more rounds than the bad guy is what you need for self-defense. In a self-defense situation you are likely to be confronted by a bad guy armed with a medium caliber semi-automatic pistol capable of firing about 15 rounds. You need at least equal firepower than the bad guy. More is obviously better. And if the bad guys start using 30 round magazines I want my magazine even larger than that. Magazine size should not be regulated.
        I agree with you about straw purchases, but straw purchases are already illegal. The problem is the offender (the one making the straw purchase) often the girlfriend or a relative of the actual buyer has no criminal record and when caught usually get off with probation. Now that’s beyond stupid. There is no incentive not to be a straw purchaser. Judges have the power to be lenient. So take away that power and make long prison terms mandatory for straw purchasers. That would be an effective deterrent.
        And was there any reason why you didn’t mention what is probably the biggest illegal source, the sale of smuggled guns from abroad. Surely something needs to be done about that. Maybe you didn’t mention it because there no way to tie that to lawful gun owners.
        You seem to have misunderstood the anti-gun talking points on gun shows. The anti-gun crowd’s beef is with private gun sales not with gun shows. Sales through licensed dealers require background checks. Private gun sales do not require background checks no matter where they occur. Some, but not many, private sales take place at gun shows. Almost all guns sold at shows go through licensed dealers. The anti-gunners want private sales to be subject to the federal requirements. This would however include burdensome record keeping requirements, which in turn would force sellers into paying a licensed firearm dealer to facilitate transactions. This would even apply to a gift or inheritance to a relative. That’s unreasonable especially since private sales are not a problem putting guns into the wrong hands. How would you feel if the government did that with property you own like watches, cars, jewelry, cash, currency, real estate etc. It’s easy enough for bad guys to get guns illegally without private sales. Again you’re trying to create a problem where none exists. If it turns out that privately sold guns are being used in crimes then something should be done about it. Until then it’s not an issue.
        This is not about controlling guns because they can be used to commit crimes. It’s about controlling people. The government’s goal supported by anti-gunners like you is to better control people by banning firearms completely. You as much admitted to wanting to ban firearms in the first paragraph of your last post in which you went on about how gun free England is so wonderful implying that America should be gun free as well. While you may not admit it your true agenda is obvious.
        Most guns are never used in a crime and very little crime is committed by what the anti-gunners like to call cowboy NRA types. Almost all crime however is committed by career criminal thugs who belong in prison. If the government truly wanted to reduce gun violence it would get tough on violent criminals. Look to keep violent criminals in prison instead of looking for ways to let them go free. Another thing often talked about is keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Nothing is ever done about it though because the government is more concerned about protecting the privacy rights of the mentally ill than preventing crazy people from shooting up shopping malls and schools. To effectively keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill you first need to know who they are which would necessarily require suspending some of those rights. You can’t have it both ways.

        Proposing new gun laws that do nothing to solve the problems they are intended to fix gives politicians and people like you a feel good sense that something is being done. It obscures the fact that the government is either too incompetent or just unwilling to deal effectively with the problems. The only things that will be accomplished with these proposed new laws is to hassle law abiding citizens and chip away at their right to bear arms for whatever lawful purpose.

      • Mr. Campbell,

        Let me first say, that I am aware of the differences between a semi-automatic and a fully automatic weapon, and the prospect of potentially being able to kill fifty or sixty people in one minute still sounds pretty much like “rapid fire,” action to me. And of course my example of the 2nd amendment not allowing private citizens to purchase tanks or nuclear bombs was intended to be a silly example, but one raised in support of the fact that the 2nd amendment, like every other, was not written as something which is infallible, written in stone, or immune from necessary reinterpretation by the courts over time. Your example of machine guns now being owned only through applications for a federal license which is expensive and hard to obtain, is a perfect example of gun regulations being created to protect the public. These were famously used during the “gangster era,” when police had to go up against career criminals who used them for a number of purposes—including bank robberies and snuffing out any of their competition, (or cops and innocent bystanders who tried to interfere). So given your feeling that magazine capacities should have no limitations, and that anyone who has been in a gun battle needs very large magazines, it’s just a very rational and reasonable question to ask where you would draw the line, (if anywhere)? The Aurora shooter did buy his semi-automatic weapon legally at a dealership where he passed a background check, but our national data base is composed of wildly differing laws and requirements that apply differently from state to state, and thus his mental illness, which was not apparent in his Colorado background check, posed as no deterrent against purchasing a deadly weapon. My personal feelings about the “rights” of the mentally ill, being abused unless we keep ALL their personal information out of data bases, is that, it’s about time we changed that unwise requirement.

        Gun dealerships already are expected to screen for criminal violations or records of violence that raise a red flag concerning a purchaser’s qualifications. But, sex offenders also must be registered for life, and their presence must made known when moving into local communities. And although most mentally ill people are not violent and not sex offenders, I see no reason NOT TO INCLUDE SOME of their psychiatric information out of background checks—to make sure this information isn’t deliberately used to abuse their rights in other situations where such knowledge is not truly required. It seems to me that including such information in backgrounds checks could easily become a basic requirements by the simple actions of our State and Federal legislators, while including certain provisions protecting against personal info being used for harm in any other type of background checks where they they not relevant. And if a gun dealer refuses to make a sale based on psychological records, who really needs to know about that except the dealers themselves? People may sue over claims of unfair discrimination, but people sue for many similar reasons, and in many similar instances, have already. The fact that some people will complain about a particular law, is no reason to automatically rule it out.

        As far as your mention about, “guns smuggled from abroad,” That source of illegal weapons is already being challenged through international treaties which are meant to impede or reject guns being imported form other countries. (see this paste from a Wikipedia article below). And if anything, gun advocates and gun organizations like the NRA, have been objecting to and resisting the creation of such treaties based on the fear that they will also impede or regulate, State and domestic sales unfairly. but that complaint is clearly not endorsed by those who back such treaties.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty

        “The UN Office for Disarmament Affairs claimed the treaty would not: interfere with domestic arms commerce or the right to bear arms in its member states; ban the export of any type of weapon; harm the legitimate right to self-defence; or undermine national arms regulation standards already in place.[24][25]
        “The Arms Trade Treaty obligates member states to monitor arms exports and ensure that weapons don’t cross existing arms embargoes or end up being used for human-rights abuses, including terrorism. Member states, with the assistance of the U.N., will put into place enforceable, standardized arms import and export regulations (much like those that already exist in the U.S.) and be expected to track the destination of exports to ensure they don’t end up in the wrong hands. Ideally, that means limiting the inflow of deadly weapons into places like Syria.”[26]
        Advocates of the treaty say that it only pertains to international arms trade, and would have no effect on current domestic laws.[27][28][29]These advocates point to the UN General Assembly resolution starting the process on the Arms Trade Treaty. The resolution explicitly states that it is “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.”

        Then there is this quote taken from the website which I link after it:

        “The patchwork of national laws, combined with the absence of clear international standards for arms transfers, increases the availability of weapons in conflict zones. Irresponsible arms suppliers and brokers can exploit these conditions to sell weapons to unscrupulous governments, criminals, and insurgents, including those fighting U.S. troops.”

        http://www.camcode.com/asset-tags/50-quotes-on-the-arms-trade-treaty/#Logistics

        So the problem of illegal gun trafficking, (if not completely solved) is certainly acknowledged and addressed.

        This from Wikipedia about the British right to self defense:

        Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 provides that:
        “A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.”
        Section 3(2) states:
        “Subsection (1) above shall replace the rules of the common law on the question when force used for a purpose mentioned in the subsection is justified by that purpose.”
        This abolished common law rules on what was “reasonable,” such as the duty to retreat. Thus, reasonable force can be used in the prevention of any crime or in making an arrest to:
        1. allow the defendant to defend himself from any form of attack so long as the attack is criminal.
        2. prevent an attack on another person, e.g. In R v Rose,[12] a young son shot dead his father to protect his mother from a serious assault, believing that this was the only practical way of defending her given his small physical size.
        3. defend his property against criminal attack in the widest sense, i.e. it can be physical possessions like a watch or credit cards demanded by a mugger (where there would also be physical danger to the owner) or, at the other extreme, possession of land.
        The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates into English law Article 2 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which defines the right to life as follows:
        “1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
        2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
        (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
        (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
        (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.”
        Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 codifies English case law on self-defence. However it makes no changes to the law.

        I did find websites discussing what kinds of weapons may be currently used in the UK for self-defense and conservative websites naturally played them up for all they were worth. However, I am not sure exactly what all the factors which contribute to such regulations are. I agree with gun advocates who bemoan the fact that some home owners may have been unfairly convicted of killing intruders entering their homes, due to the specific legal definition of “self-defense.” And I am sure that home owners are sometimes constrained by laws that are too rigid. But gun laws differ from state to state, and sometimes the definition of self defense IS NEEDED—especially in cases when a trigger happy and paranoid home-owner shoots first and ask questions later. The news recently reported the shooting of a black woman who, according to a home owner, was pounding on his door and demanding entrance. In reality the woman only wanted to use his phone to make an emergency call, was not armed, and never stepped foot inside his house. This is a perfect example of why it is sometimes necessary to hold those claiming self defense to certain legal standards, in order to safeguard against irresponsible actions on the parts of private citizens

        Since I am getting way too long winded, a few other points;
        I never claimed that the British system is “superior,” I merely referred to it in answer to your false claim that no country which prohibits its citizens from owning guns, has ever refrained from subjugating those same citizens to government domination—just not true! And I also think is absurd that you are judging the current British government by referring to its tyranny during our American revolution? Just because King George was a despot and the colonies were politically abused, that says absolutely nothing about the UK and its national temperament, or about its gun laws today!

        In America we also amend and eliminate certain laws through our legislature and our judicial process, but that doesn’t mean we have no established rights—nor does it mean England doesn’t either! The British certainly have recognized the right to self defense in the past, and if somehow they are not doing the same now, then I would object to any specific British gun laws which are overly burdensome and unfair to citizens. Also your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, (as I am sure you are fully aware), is not always in agreement with our government’s definition, or with the Supreme Court’s. We allows our courts to subject the 2nd Amendment to frequent judicial scrutiny, in order to determine how to justly apply gun laws today. Both your interpretations and mine, are also not necessarily written in stone.

        I know there have been false reports about the numbers of illegal gun sales made at gun shows, but there are undoubtedly significant numbers of illegal purchases made at them still. And although authorized dealers are at these shows, that does not mean that they can’t just decide to accept cash, and sell weapons in the parking lot—especially when a lack of paperwork keeps those transactions secret and there are no records of any sale!

        But, just consider how much paper work and legal requirements are currently needed to obtain and keep an automobile—along with purchasing expensive insurance in many states. Does that mean dealers should not keep records of sales, and keep customer information—especially when such info can be used to solve criminal cases involving the motor vehicles they sell? I have driven for forty five years have satisfied all those requirements, and not once has my car been confiscated for no good reason by the government—unless I were to drive drunk, drive it into crowds, or in any way use it as an instrument of death in some other harmful way! Perhaps where potential lethal weapons that can kill human beings are concerned, we should put up with some extra scrutiny and paperwork applied to all of them—even if inconvenient!

        Finally, why are you so eager to pigeonhole me and others, who may not be in complete agreement with your understandings of the 2nd amendment? You keep referring to my “liberal friends”, and my “true agenda,” when actually I may or may not agree with my friends on several specific points, and I certainly do not advocate complete gun control! If that were true I would also be criticizing hunters and sportsmen like my dad who kept about 6 hunting rifles in a gun case inside our home? And if true, that would also ignore many of the points I have been clearly making, which would absolutely NOT be agreed with by any person wanting all guns confiscated and/or legally prohibited!

      • When discussing the personal information of the mentally ill with Mr. Campbell, and how it might be used in background checks, this is what I said:

        “I see no reason NOT TO INCLUDE SOME of their psychiatric information out of background checks—to make sure this information isn’t deliberately used to abuse their rights in other situations where such knowledge is not truly required.” I should have instead said something like:

        “I see no reason NOT TO EXCLUDE SOME of their psychiatric information from background checks—to make sure this information isn’t deliberately used to abuse their rights in other situations where such knowledge is not truly required.”

        Sorry.

      • It would be absolutely illegal to include ANY “psychiatric information” on any kind of public/governmental document. The reason that anything “psychiatric” appears on a background check is because, and only if, a person has been ADJUDICATED to be mentally deficient/insane/unbalanced, etc– that is, it is decided by a judge. And, because it is decided by a judge/court, it then becomes a matter of public record, and so is then accessible to any law enforcement officer, from local to federal, who runs a person’s name, whether it be during a traffic stop or during a background check, which are essentially the same thing. In other words, once one has been adjudicated to be insane, one cannot pass a background check. And this is as it should be– I certainly not want any of my “psychiatric information” to be on any kind of governmental/public document, unless this has been decided according to the law i.e. in court. Nor would I want the opinion of, say, one doctor, to restrict my rights. Which is why the system ensures that only when is it appropriate, will psychiatric information restrict the exercise of rights.

      • You are correct. Unless adjudicated as dangerous a person’s mental health information cannot be placed on any federal database. And that is the reason people like the Aurora shooter. James Holmes and others like him get their hands on guns. As long as privacy rights of the mentally ill are placed above public safety innocent people will continue to be slaughtered. You can’t have it both ways.Phony liberal politicians ignore the issue. Instead they push for new gun control laws that obviously do nothing to solve the problem but tell everybody that it will. What’s even worse is their political supporters believe what they are told.

    • Mr. Campbell, Patrick, and His bondservant,

      It’s rather confusing where our comments seem to end up, and the fact that there are very few “reply” options listed immediately after many of our posts. It seems that we have all been mistakenly responding to comments that others have not necessarily made, or at least have not been the only ones to make. All I know is that I first began debating the worth of the ACA in regards to government powers being used justifiably in order to assure the common welfare of all Americans—as is written in the Constitution’s preamble. This Mr. Campbell was the comment you made earlier on this thread which prompted my initial response:

      NOVEMBER 26, 2015 AT 4:39 PM
      “And how’s that Obamacare working out for you. Everything negative predicted about it by conservatives has come true. Premiums are increasing exponentially not nearly enough younger healthy people signing up to offset the cost of older less healthy people that do sign up. The list goes on too many to list here. It’s not healthcare insurance it’s just another government giveaway program that we can’t afford. Even AARP who was one of the biggest proponents and who got into healthcare because of Obamacare is now saying they are pulling out because they are afraid the program will go bust leaving them holding the bag. . Imagine that who would have guessed. You lefties aren’t going to be happy until you bankrupt this country just like you’ve already done in the big cities. Even then you won’t stop just like in Greece, an economic basket case yet the people are calling for more socialism,”

      Reply

      As I said, I considered my response relevant as a tangentinal issue which had to do with the government’s right to regulate healthcare, and similarly, its right to regulate certain aspects of gun ownership, both of which involve the question of just where the government’s authority begins and ends. Am I right to assume that those who favor a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment are of the opinion that the government and Obama in particular, do not, or should not, have any authority to impose even the most moderate kinds of regulation?

      Anyway, I will gladly drop this issue if the rest of you will, but just so you know, I also dispute the implication that someone with my opinion on gun regulations is some sort of Abortion fan. Your words again, Mr. Campbell:

      DECEMBER 1, 2015 AT 1:20 PM
      “I was not getting nasty, And I did not change the topic somebody else did, about healthcare. After responding to it I realized that was a mistake. When he wrote back I responded telling him to find another forum to talk about healthcare, He was a lib big on abortion and obamacare not me. I’m an anti-abortion pro-gun conservative.”

      Robert P. Campbell

      The fact is that my position on Obamacare and gun regulations, doesn’t automatically pigeonhole me as being some kind of indiscriminate advocate of unregulated abortions. Like many people I think they should be limited only to the earliest portions of pregnancy, they should be done anytime to save the life of the mother and/or the child, and that such decisions should be made by the pregnant woman’s family—not the government. And I also like the idea of parental notification, in order to determine if the family itself will advise its children and help assume responsibility if a young lady decides to keep her child. But in cases of rape, I also believe the Plan B, or Morning after pill should not be prohibited by law.

      So let me point out right here Mr. Campbell that you have been complaining about others diverging from the primary issue examined by in article, which has led you to discuss Obamacare, and now abortions. So you are no less guilty of going off topic than any of the rest of us.

      And again, as I said, I will agree to stay more on the topic of Hitler and Gun control if the rest of you do. But if I believe a certain topic is tangentially related to the subject of Hitler and/or gun control, and it brings up a valid point, I will not hesitate to make mention of that topic. In that respect Mr. Campbell, you do NOT have the right to dictate what I write about, or what I don’t write about, and you have been especially hypocritical regarding your own tendency to wander off topic!

      • Thank you. And It’s not that I am afraid to debate it’s just that I find Obamacare supporters to either support this for emotional reasons or, and I’m fumbling for the right words, are pointy head types, perhaps with some financial interest in continuing the law, argue for it using talking points, questionable statistics, and cut and paste references. Having a discussion with either type is like banging your head against the wall…it feels so when you stop doing it..

      • Mr. Campbell,

        I don’t understand why conservative commenters keep repeating that liberal commenters are somehow intellectually defective for occasionally being motivated by emotions? Are you never motivated by the same? My experience when debating with those who oppose all, or nearly all, gun regulations, is that they often pounce on their opponents with anger and resentment for not immediately understanding their own points of view. When it comes to gun laws, healthcare, or any issues which might annoy conservatives, I have, (figuratively of course), had my head cut off, for merely raising minor objections which are offensive to gun rights fundamentalists. Are anger and resentment not also emotions—presumably arising from having one’s personal feelings about what constitutes the right to self-defense being challenged? And doesn’t challenging the notion that Hitler controlled his enemies by denying their right to posses weapons, immediately raise emotional contempt from those who favor setting the 2nd amendment in stone?

        In most of my arguments I have tried to present an intellectual defense for what I believe in, as well as sometimes becoming emotionally invested by the seriousness of the gun rights issues that are being debated, and also by the lack of real concern which conservative 2nd amendment debaters seem to have, about an issue which involves the loss of Mall shoppers, theater and concert patrons, restaurants goers, church congregations, schoolyard children, work place employees, college student’s, political gatherers, and scores of innocent victims in any other corner of life, who lose their lives, only because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. I would like to think that anti-gun regulation proponents like yourself, also feel concerned by the loss of dozens of primary school children’s lives, and would also want to prevent tragedies like Sandy hook from happening again—yet how do you react when a mass shooting elicits some press coverage of grieving parents who have lost their first grade children to an insane shooter? You immediately attack such press coverage by trying to cast it as appealing only to emotionalism, and to the supposedly invalid arguments arising from the grief of those parents? Are you really sure that you would not desire to change some of your own opinions, after losing a child to senseless violence? Do you really think that grieving parents have no right to be motivated by the love for, and then the loss of, their own children’s lives? Do you believe that trying to do what is right, and what consequently makes one feel good, is somehow a deficient and misguided response? Are you somehow always above the fray and never motivated by doing what you think is right—and then feeling good about doing it?

        Here’s the point: You have many justifiable arguments to make, and some which rightly point to the difficulty of passing effective laws in an attempt to end gun violence. But how can you judge anyone who injects some degree of emotion into this issue? How many times must I and others, be called dumb-asses or idiot gun grabbers, or “pointy headed types,”simply because the easy availability of semi-automatic weapons, ammunition, body armor, and large capacity magazines, concerns us, I know gun rights activists like yourselves are often the brunt of insults and unfair criticisms, but do you really feel that Charleston Heston’s dare to take his gun from his cold dead fingers, is not an an argument based on emotional appeal? Do you really think that when you openly insult commenters like me, that your anger and vitriol, are expressed sans emotion?

        I’ll grant you the fact that gun enthusiast like yourselves know more about weapons than the typical liberal who doesn’t have that passion, and that you have legitimate concerns about protecting yourself and your loved ones from harm, but how can you put down anyone who responds to their own intense grief by simply looking around and asking if there is a way to prevent mass shootings happening, or at least reduce their frequency? When you thoughtlessly criticize those who are dedicated to finding ways to accomplish this, you only come across as cruel and disrespectful, or as someone who cannot walk a mile in another’s shoes. I hope I am right when I assume your arguments are meant to have more depth than that, and that you want your opinions to be considered with respect, just as liberals and grieving parents do. So why do you insist on coming across as such belligerent jerks? You imply that those who support regulations are only motivated by some sort of financial gain? OK then—explain the hows wheres and whys about why you hold such an opinion, and why you believe that it’s true! Then be willing to listen courteously to those who object! And please realize that we are all motivated by our human emotions to some extent, and that we are all offended when our FEELINGS about this issue are rejected without the common courtesy of being honestly considered, and when accusing their holders of making arguments that are illogical and defective simply because they might have some emotional appeal?

        POP, I don’t know if I am doing the correct thing by sending this response via email to you, but I often have no way of knowing why some of my comments end up being posted where they do, and why there are usually very few “reply” options that might allow me to leave my comment there—as direct responses to another cementers remarks? Is sending an email this way, what is meant by leaving comments “above this line?” can I do this and also request receiving email notifications about others responses? Please answer some of these questions, without printing this last paragraph along with my comments above.

        Peter W. Johnson

      • Mr. Campbell,

        I don’t understand why conservative comenters keep complaining that liberal comenters are somehow intellectually defective for occasionally being motivated by emotions? Are you never motivated by the same? My experience when debating with those who oppose all, or nearly all, gun regulations, is that they often pounce on their opponents with anger and resentment for not immediately understanding their own points of view. When it comes to gun laws, health-care, or any issues which might annoy conservatives, I have, (figuratively of course), had my head cut off, for merely raising minor objections which are offensive to gun rights fundamentalists. Are anger and resentment not also emotions—presumably arising from having one’s personal feelings about what constitutes the right to self-defense being challenged? And doesn’t challenging the notion that Hitler controlled his enemies by denying their right to posses weapons, immediately raise emotional contempt from those who favor setting the 2nd amendment in stone?

        In most of my arguments I have tried to present an intellectual defense for what I believe in, as well as sometimes becoming emotionally invested by the seriousness of the gun rights issues that are now being debated, and also by the lack of real concern which conservative 2nd amendment debaters seem to display about an issue which involves the loss of Mall shoppers, theater and concert patrons, restaurants goers, church congregations, schoolyard children, work place employees, college student’s, political gatherers, and scores of innocent victims in any other realm of life who lose their lives only because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. I would like to think that anti-gun regulation proponents like yourself, also feel concerned by the loss of dozens of primary school children’s lives, and would also want to prevent tragedies like Sandy hook from happening again—yet how do you react when a mass shooting elicits some press coverage of grieving parents who have lost their first grade children to an insane shooter? You immediately attack such press coverage by trying to cast it as appealing only to emotionalism, and to the supposedly invalid arguments arising from the grief of those parents? Are you really sure that you would not desire to change some of your own opinions, after losing a child to senseless violence? Do you really think that grieving parents have no right to be motivated by the love for, and then the loss of, their own children’s lives? Do you believe that trying to do what is right, and what consequently makes one feel good, is somehow a deficient and misguided response? Are you somehow always above the fray and never motivated by doing what you think is right—and then feeling good about doing it?

        Here’s the point: You have many justifiable arguments to make, some which rightly point to the difficulty of passing effective laws in order to end gun violence. But how can you judge anyone who injects some degree of emotion into this issue? How many times must I and others, be called dumb-asses or idiot gun grabbers, or “pointy headed types,”simply because the easy availability of semi-automatic weapons, ammunition, body armor, and large capacity magazines, concerns us, I know gun rights activists like yourselves are often the brunt of insults and unfair criticisms, but do you really feel that Charleston Heston’s dare to take his gun from his cold dead fingers, is not an an argument based on emotional appeal? Do you really think that when you openly insult comenters like me, that your anger and vitriol, are expressed sans emotion?

        I’ll grant you the fact that gun enthusiast like yourselves know more about weapons than the typical liberal who doesn’t have that passion, and that you have legitimate concerns about protecting yourself and your loved ones from harm, but how can you put down anyone who responds to their own intense grief by simply looking around and asking if there is a way to prevent mass shootings from happening, or at least to reduce their frequency? When you thoughtlessly criticize those who are dedicated to finding ways to accomplish this, you only come across as cruel and disrespectful, or as someone who cannot walk a mile in another’s shoes. I hope I am right when I assume your arguments are meant to have more depth than that, and that you want your opinions to be considered with respect, just as liberals and grieving parents do. So why do you insist on coming across as such belligerent jerks? You imply that those who support regulations are only motivated by some sort of financial gain? OK then—explain the hows wheres and whys that justify you to hold such opinions, and why you believe that they’re true! Then be willing to listen courteously to those who object! And please realize that we are all motivated by our human emotions to some extent, and that we are all offended when our FEELINGS about this issue are rejected without the common courtesy of being honestly considered, and, when accused of making arguments that are illogical and defective simply because they might have some emotional appeal?

      • If you are also asking me, then yes I support the ACA. Its not perfect but a godsend to those who previously could not afford to pay for their own healthcare.

        But as we all know that is not the topic of this article. So unless it is somehow pertinent to the conversation I will not bring it up anymore.

  2. The American Revolution began in a dispute over gun control when British Redcoats marched toward Lexington….. you do realize that the reason.. they won was because they fought… right. Also Gun fanatics….. really… what is so fanatical about protecting yourself and fearing goverment…. When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” Supposedly written By Thomas Jefferson..(doesnt matter if he said it or not.. it’s true).. Why would you trust a goverment to protect you if that goverment doesnt trust you enough to protect yourself…

    • The American Revolution, like most successful revolutions, wasn’t fought by just a group of armed citizens. It was fought by a trained and organized army on its home turf. There is nothing fanatical about protecting yourself or (within reason) fearing the government. Gun fanatics are not just people who own guns. They’re people who are OBSESSED with owning guns and with finding an excuse to use them – even if they have to manufacture such excuses. (And no, the revolution was not fought over “gun control”.)

      • “The notion that armed citizens are likely to fend off an oppressive government is mostly just another fantasy bubble surrounding the heads of gun fanatics” Thats the most Unamerican thing Ive ever heard. Not sure if your American or not so don’t take that to heart. When I was a child some 60 years ago I remember people like your type complaining about the Allies helping… If you are Not american. You would be speaking German right now son. What are you going to do when it happens again. Ive been around long enough to understand how it works. Educate yourself.

      • As a gun owner, it disgusts me that you–a left-wing liberal–stereotype all gun owners as “obsessed with owning guns.” I own guns for different reasons: to hunt, sport shooting, and to defend myself, but I’m not obsessed with owning them. I’m thankful we have a Constitution to keep people like you from completely robbing us of our rights, but it’s frightening to me that educated people like you ignore the data! The bans on guns have little to do with crime, and every thing to do with the Government putting its people in check. The assault weapons ban had no impact on reducing violent crime, yet liberals want to do it again; this time permanently. In Chicago and D.C. where it is illegal to carry a handgun, violent crime is rampant. This is because when you take guns out of law-abiding citizens hands, the only ones left with guns are the criminals, and I know liberals are smart enough to realize this, so why do they still wish to STRIP American people of their 2nd Amendment right???

      • Wow. I counted 6 misguided and/or irrelevant catch phrases in your brief comment: (1) “left-wing liberal”, (2) “stereotype all gun owners”, (3) “robbing us of our rights”, (4) “Government putting its people in check”, (5) “when you take guns out of law-abiding citizens hands, the only ones left with guns are the criminals”, (6) “2nd Amendment right”. I’m impressed.

      • You know, the words guns, rifles, cannons, mortars, firearms were all in common and legal usage in 1791.
        Curious that the authors of the 2nd used “arms” and not firearms.
        But anyway, the 9th and 10th amendments secure our right to own firearms.

      • I guess I could use this opportunity to tell you to “educate yourself”,or try and pick nits about grammar or spelling,but that’s sort of bush league.When presented with opinions that I don’t agree with I’d rather deal with them honestly rather than hide behind a post made entirely of “You don’t know the difference between there and their”.In plain English,that’s crap.
        So,how about this instead?
        In 1776,the only “trained and organized army” on this continent was the British army.”We” didn’t have one,”we” weren’t a country.”We” were a baker’s dozen loosely allied colonies whose govts were loyal only to themselves.
        There were some state militias,but “trained and organized’ would have been a laughable description of them.Their only practical experience,the only reason that they actually existed,was to fight indians.And they were only marginally effective at that.
        I suppose you believe that it was some grand,trained and organized army that led to Pakenham’s retreat from New Orleans in 1815 as well.Nope.While we did in fact have a trained army by that time,the majority of Jackson’s command were civilians who bore arms under the right granted them by the second amendment.

      • The colonists did indeed organize and train an army. It took some time for them to get it together, but if they hadn’t, we all might be pledging allegiance to the Queen today.

      • The 9th & 10th ammendments have nothing to do with the right to bear arms.

        The 9th ammendment states that nothing written in the constitution can be used to cancel ammendments to it.

        And the 10th ammendment is to allow states power to have laws that are more specific to the general rights given under the federal government.

        The word “arms” was cleverly used by the founding fathers and brothers because it means weaponry. ANY weaponry needed to defend against enemies foreign or domestic. Not just guns. As you stated cannons and mortars were also used.

        The word ARMS included any all all weapons not just firearms or guns.

        Each state regulates their legality as per the 10th ammendment.

      • Patrick asks “what is fanatical about protecting yourself and fearing government?” He answers his own question with the word “fear”. Fear is exactly the problem, as when we are ruled by fear we make irrational choices, including choices that fail to protect us against what we fear. Children who fear a monster in the closet hide under the covers instinctively, and it makes them feel safer but would offer absolutely no protection whatsoever against any monster worthy of the name. And a gun is even more useless against the state than blankets are against monsters.

        It’s true that we ought to be vigilant against the state, but for now, at least, Americans still live in a country of “laws not men”, and the state is fundamentally a creature of law. Gun fanatics have it exactly backwards: your guns do not protect your 2nd Amendment rights; the 2nd Amendment protects your guns. And the 2nd Amendment is… a LAW. Engage with law, engage with political debate, vote and volunteer; THAT is how you protect yourself against the abuses of state power, by wielding the law instead of violence.

        I don’t have a problem with confident, secure adults owning guns. But frightened people? People ruled by fear are dangerous, and more so when they have guns.

      • Yes, the American Revolution was fought by a “trained and organized army” – and it took time to train the Continental Army from a rabble in arms to an effective fighting force. We constantly forget and ignore that it was the intervention of the French Army and Navy that made the ultimate victory possible. The majority of the allied forces that bottled up Cornwallis at Yorktown were French and not American. It was the Dutch and French who supplied the Americans with arms and powder and that foreign intervention in the internal affairs of the British Empire made it possible for Washington’s army to survive long enough to see Cornwallis surrender.

      • They forget that many in the NE were well worn soldiers who spent years fighting. Washington and many of his men fought in the French-Indian war. They were continually fighting as they moved west. They were not simpleton farmers. They knew how to fight wars. Several in NY even went back to France and fought their revolution. I live near many important battle fields around the Hudson river so history is my backyard. My family fought and built this country since the 17th century so I spend a lot of time reading history.

        One thing these nut jobs miss is the push for “gun regulations” as mentioned in the Second Amendment not an all out ban.

        “A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

        How many of them are active in a militia? and weekend warrior, paranoid groups do not count.

      • First, it was not fought by a trained militia and you should not fear your government, I don’t know where you’re from but here in the founding documents and in the letters from Thomas Jefferson you will find that government should fear its people and not the other way around. That is when the government start to encroach on its people

    • Patrick, you might want to go back to school and review some history, because the American Revolution was not about gun control, it was about gaining our freedom and stopping the tyranny of England against our economy. Gun control, for crying out loud. You did attend school when you were growing up right?

      • Rich people convincing poor people to fight for them so they can make more money.
        235 years and nothing changes.

        Some of it had to do with religion also. There was a big break with the Church of England at that time. That is why we have the Church/State Amendment.

      • We “Gun Nuts” are as passionate about our guns as you are about your grammar. It seems that y’all think that I am endangering your lives with my guns. I would never harm anyone who didn’t try to harm me or my family. I’ve done nothing wrong…Commited no crime…but for some reason the current Goverment is wanting to limit how many rounds my gun can hold. You guys are right, I don’t need 30 rounds in my gun, just like I don’t need a car to go over 55. Its hard for me to understand the thinking of Disarmament of the Law-abiding citizen no matter Race, Religon, or Sex. However I do think that if y’all people as smart as you seem to be, would focus more on how to get the Guns out of the hands of criminals As much as you are trying to get’em out of mine. WE all be a lot better off.

      • GunNut,

        You do understand that cars are not specifically designed to be lethal weapons whose primary function is to kill animals or other humans don’t you? So the point is not to eliminate anything which could conceivably be used for destructive purposes, but to make it harder for the criminals you complain about to obtain a tool that is designed especially for either for killing, or for target practice. We all know its such an inconvenience for you to have to drive at 55 and reload every 15 rounds during target practice, so we really feel for you! But could it be that criminals who can buy semi-automatic weapons capable of killing 50 or 60 people in one minute, while using 100 round magazines, would also balk at the chore of being forced to use only magazines which fire 15 rounds or less? And, what distinguishes them from you and I, could mainly be, that they are not interested only in self defense, but also in carrying out deliberate attacks on large numbers of innocent people! Why should we pick on them for that? Just think how inconvenient that must be for them?

        If you find it harder to buy guns which can handle 100 rounds at a time, why would they not also find it harder? Well, at least making illegal purchases with a criminal record is against the law! so when many of them are arrested, they will no longer be on the streets to threaten people like us with 100 round magazines or 30 round magazines, or 15 round magazines. I also hear that institutions which take in those who are convicted of gun crimes, absolutely frown on letting inmates keep AR-15s in their cells–poor guys! Sure, when they get out in a few years, they can always commit more crimes and make more illegal purchases, for which they can then face additional jail time for. But alas! you will be forced to walk right into a gun dealership and easily buy a new semi-automatic rifle without needing to fear any stinking cops, or even the prospect of more jail time!—How unfair can life get? just what is the government trying to do to you?!!

      • Bro,
        It’s not hard at all for the “bad guys” to get 100 round mags cuz they have almost unlimited access to black market products. So now me and my friend are not able to buy these products as easily, but the bad guys can! The only thing you accomplish by disarming citizens is lowering the chances of a bad guy being stopped before he can do a lot of damage in a shooting! If you think about it, if a bad guy knew that he was going to go into a mall and “preform” a shooting (for lack of a better word) that was filled with people carrying sidearms, the likely-hood is that some just wouldn’t do it, or others would be stopped before a ton of people were killed. There was a story about a man that went into a mall to preform a shooting, a guy with a sidearm saw the guy pull a gun out of his coat to start shooting everyone, and he killed the guy before the murderer fired a single shot! Just saying. . . .

      • Bro,
        First of all, how do you know ALL bad guys have UNLIMITED ACCESS TO BLACK MARKET PRODUCTS? And anyway, can’t anyone seeking to buy black market products find access to them? Couldn’t you or I do so if we wanted to? So then, that fact really nullifies any chances of preventing death and injuries when attempting to stop criminals and the insane people from buying guns–right?

        Funny, but millions of background checks have been done in recent years, which means millions of red flags were raised after examining the data from all of those bad guys who have unlimited access to guns—What? I guess that’s why they tried to buy them from a registered gun dealer anyway–come again? Very few of those checks resulted in prosecutions for sure, but what about those that did? Did they get themselves in trouble because they were too lazy to take the safe way and purchase 100 round clips from black market dealers, or did they just want to risk taking a background check for the thrill of it?–well it takes all kinds to make a murderer right?

        The point we so often overlook is that when millions of background checks are run, how do we really know how many people who were rejected, were not ultimately hindered from eventually buying a weapon and doing something very bad simply because they encountered resistance from the system? I don’t have any figures handy but I would bet, out of millions, a fairly large number of the charges stuck, and people who shouldn’t have guns were prevented from having them. And tell me—how do we really know what number of horrific attacks were prevented when there is no real way to quantify crimes that weren’t done? And, as far as sick people being deterred by the knowledge that many people in a mall or elsewhere, have guns, couldn’t it be the case that insane people don’t give a damn anyway if they are already nuts enough to try and commit mass murder? How about suicide bombers, or all those who kill themselves after doing their dirty work? How much does the instinct for self preservation really sway them? Maybe yes, maybe no, but either way we are just speculating, and speculation is not the best thing to base laws and gun policies on.

        I recognize all the roadblocks and obstacles in the way of truly preventing large numbers of mass shooters form doing harm, and I certainly won’t stand in your way if you need a gun to defend yourself or your family. But you are applying a chain saw to butter, and creating overkill by seeking unlimited ways in which to prevent literal overkill.

        Tell me with a straight face how most break-ins involving armed burglars or any other kinds of bad guys, will not be decided until either you or them, fires 100 rounds? Its like you want to use a race car to go drive down the block and buy a loaf of bread–just because you damn well want to! And if you happen to run over anyone or wipe out on the way, well that’s just the way it is!
        We all want certain products and things, but we don’t really need many of them. And when having them causes necessary risks to others, why shouldn’t the government provide for the common welfare, and maybe prohibit ordinary citizens from racing their funny cars down the main street of town, or doing what was done in the past, and strictly regulating machine guns? Think about it!

      • First of all stop quoting things I didn’t say. I never said they ALL had access to black market products, I simply said “they” as a general statement. Take all the gangs and mass murderers, they pretty much all have a access to it, and if you say other wise your not thinking smart. Now that’s not saying that every burglar that breaks into a house is involved in black market trade, but as gun laws get tighter and tighter, those rates will continue to rise. And NO, that doesn’t nullify anything because you and I are law abiding citizens, so we wouldn’t buy anything through the black market. So what does that create criminals with guns, and law abiding citizens without them. Kinda unfair don’t ya think???
        Alright nothing in your next paragraph makes sense to me, thats not trying to be nasty, just honestly don’t understand what your talking about.
        And we don’t know how many shootings were stopped by having armed citizens, but there doesn’t have to be a chart to show when it comes to human life. Imagine if in the example I gave, a close relative of yours was present, and had that man carrying in the mall not been there, he/she along with 20 other people would have been shot dead or seriously wounded. There is no chart needed to tell the tale, human life is human life!
        I will give you that sick people will not be deterred by the fact of armed people in a mall. However not everyone that preforms shootings, or is a suicide bomber is sick. And the ones that are, when they start shooting or bombing or whatever, people that are there if armed could eliminate the “bad guys” before there full destructive capability could be fulfilled. It’s not speculation to say that some MAY be swayed, and it’s definitely not to say that many times those wishing to do evil could be stopped before they could finish the job. I’m not saying this would happen every time, but it might be that someone who is carrying, saves the life of one near and dear to you!
        I’m not sure I understand your question about armed burglars and 100 rounds, so if you could possibly restate it that would be nice! Next should it be the governments job to decide what we do and don’t need, I don’t think so. That sounds very communistic to me, the government coming in and saying “Alright doesn’t look like you need this or this, and come on, do you really need this!?” Not there place at all. When looking at the phrase “Providing for the common welfare” you have to look at what the people meant when they were writing this. What did that mean to them? How far can you go, riding the phrase “the government is just providing for the common welfare”???

      • His bondservant, Here is a paste of what I responded to:

        “Bro,
        It’s not hard at all for “the bad guys” to get 100 round mags cuz they have almost unlimited access to black market products.”

        Yes, technically I did not include every exact word in your statement. My mind probably didn’t take note of the words”at all,” and instead read what you said as “for all.” So I was wrong. But what if I change my comment into something more accurate like:

        “Bro, how do you know it’s not at all hard for “THE BAD GUYS,” to get 100 round magazines. Cuz “THEY,” have almost unlimited access to black market products?

        You are still referring to a collective group called “THE BAD GUYS,” And claiming, “THEY,” have ALMOST UNLIMITED ACCESS TO BLACK MARKET PRODUCTS” So does your use of the words “the bad guys,” refer to a specific segment of bad guys, like the red haired bad guys, the Italian bad guys, or the gang member bad guys, or are you referring to all of them? You got me on the fine print, but you still made basically the same statement I claimed you did. Is “ALMOST unlimited access” to black market products, completely different than “unlimited access?” Not much in the final analysis!

        Yes, if those who shouldn’t have guns, cannot access them as easily when taking background checks, they may turn to the black market to get them. My point is–so what, that has always been the case, and still millions of red flags have continued to be raised by background checks. And while very few of these are denied, when you consider millions of background checks, even .05% amounts to 500 denials for each of those millions. and if only ten percent of those, such as 50 mass shooters who could each have killed dozens of innocent people are stopped, I would say the effort isworth it.

        Another point is that, since private sellers aren’t required to do background checks, and may actually not fill our state forms, (even though they are supposed to), background checks are not being used nearly as much as they should. And all kinds of buyers, Not only gang members and mass murderers, but also those with histories of mental illness and domestic abuse, may be getting essentially a free pass.

        Then there is the fact that law enforcement is already going after the black market, and gun traffickers. So isn’t the point to also reduce those guns by large amounts, while continuing to try and close loopholes that permit private sellers not to issue background checks, or to get away without filing out proper state paper work? You and I and most people are not law breakers, but no one can say for sure of every licensed dealer who is supposed to file the proper paperwork, may not also be dealing on the black market themselves. According to a PBS Front-line documentary that I linked for Mr. Campbell, that is done much more often than we might want to think.

        Another point I made is that even knowledge of facing background checks will not necessarily deter someone whose intentions may be destructive and/or criminal. If millions of background checks are done in a few years time, then that means that millions of red flags also had to be raised by them. So are criminals, the insane, or domestic abusers, just stupid, or do they get a thrill form submitting to a test that they know they cannot legally pass? Yes most of those red flags do not result in denials, but, why do dishonest purchaser not anticipate what will happen if they are subjected to a test? What about the 500 that are turned down—are they just deluded to think their reg flags would not be noticed? Perhaps that is the point I made, that you didn’t get? And, In the very least, this means that the oiur background check system is very flawed.

        You are right that we don’t always know if mass shooters would have been stopped by a good guy with a gun, but there have been very few documented cases where such confrontations end positively. And often, an armed citizen only hurts him or herself, and causes more injures to others in crowed areas. But isn’t it Ironic that you apparently want the benefit of the doubt where a good guy with a gun may is concerned, and I want the benefit of the doubt for background checks or other ways that the system might better screen those who might want to cause harm? We are both wanting positive outcomes based on our personal faith concerning the best ways to accomplish them?

        Actually I see nothing wrong with an armed, but plain clothed policeman, or some other sort of armed guard in our schools, who might possibly be able to repel an armed assailant. I don’t think kids would be traumatized if his weapon is kept out of sight and if he is dressed like the rest of the faculty. I also think it would be a good idea to build safe areas in each classroom, or several throughout a school where children and teachers could take cover. But I balk at the idea of unlimited open, or concealed carry laws in every corner of our everyday lives. I think anyone who takes a gun into a bar, no matter how sane or well schooled, is NOT truly being safe. In some of the dives I have been in, that would be like voluntary suicide or risking unavoidable trouble. It’s debatable if every suicide bomber or mall shooter is truly mentally ill, but some would probably back down and give Themselves up. However, I doubt if a few armed citizens would usually create that outcome, rather than someone else, who quickly summons police or other armed authorities?

        About armed burglars and 100 round magazines—I have talked to several gun advocates who claim they must have that ammo capacity to safety defend against home intruders? I am not opposed to keeping a carefully stored weapon at home to repel a home invader, But my God! In most break-in’s or domestic assaults, I just cannot imagine a scene where a homeowner has to fire all of 100 round before effectively defending him or herself? Sure an intruder may kill him or her before they incapacitate or kill him. But either way the outcome will be decided with much less shots fired than that!

        I appreciate your feeling that the government should not be able to tell us what we need and what we don’t, and in most cases it doesn’t. But my feeling is that possessions which pose potential danger to the public, may really need to be regulated for that very reason. The reason an automobile must be purchased with certain requirements, or be subject to new license and registration each years, as well as be driven by someone with sufficient eyesight, as well as a number of hours of real behind the wheel training–let alone be subject to local traffic violations, as well as, in most states, carry liability insurance, is simply because it is a product that can potentially cause great damage or harm, to life limb and/or property. Another example is the fact that the paint used in households to cover our walls, can no longer contain lead–simply because lead posses serious health hazards, so there again, its simply a good idea that the government should regulate the kind of paint we use.

        We live in a society where we have the right to own and use most of the things we want, but there are certain products like semi-automatic weapons which are increasingly used by mad mass shooters, who recognize them as efficient and potent killing tools. So, why shouldn’t the government make damn sure that as few of them as possible get into the wrong hands?

        Even if we are free to use some weapons and are responsible and knowledgeable about them, I think we should never be given complete freedom about which of the most damaging ones we use. So Pardon me if I point out that semi-automatic weapons need to be regulated in ways that deter madmen from using them in whatever way they want. We all need some regulations and will never attain unlimited freedom anyway!

      • I just read 2 of your diatribes from last week directed to another.It’s hard to respond to anything that you write for a number of reasons. You jump around from one thing to another and then back to the one and on to another. And you don’t communicate very well. You babble on and on but say very little of substance.You use faulty logic and draw conclusions based on conjecture. It appears that all you know on this subject comes from biased sources. You often provide links to these sources as you did with the bogus Bloomberg report which is probably the basis for a lot of what you say is going on. One thing I want to challenge you on. You said that often.armed citizens hurt themselves or innocent bystanders in crowed areas. Nonsense. Where did you get information from? The NRA and several national police organizations keep track of armed citizen encounters with criminals. .The NRA actually has statistics. All are in agreement that guns in the hands of good guys save innocent lives, not as you imply take innocent lives. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts .

      • Mr. Campbell,

        First, for you to criticize me for writing a diatribe is like the pot calling the kettle black. You have repeatedly insulted me and directed me to post in ways that satisfy your own ideas of what a comment is! The difference is that, I admit that I am passionate about my beliefs, and I do not automatically discredit anyone who injects dramatic tones into their comments–with the possible exceptions of Charlton Heston, and Wayne Lapierre!

        Some of my comments to His bondservant, made use of sarcasm to rebut things that he said, in the similar way that he used sarcasm to comment about those who desire improved gun regulations. But with him also, I let him know when I agreed with some of his points–a concession I have never received from you.

        The basic theme in your last comment, is once again composed primarily of insulting my writing style, rather than commenting on the points I made. I would prefer that my remarks should not be met only with ad ahominem attacks, but with some honest disagreements with statements I make, and which you could challenge with honest comments that explain why you disagree. Sorry, your opinion of my writing style and my motivations has nothing to do with debating the issue of gun regulations, or whether they are merely contrivances used by governments to gain control of their people–as the topic of this thread disputes!

        No doubt I may sometimes not express myself clearly, but I honestly strive to make my points clearly understood, even after the inevitable hostile responses you make to them. Yet you continue to accuse me of pasting entire articles to make points, and of never expressing my own opinions–an incredible falsehood if I ever heard one! I’ll let readers of this thread judge for themselves whether either of those absurd claims are true—claims that lately that seems to take up way to much of your commenting space, frankly!

        Back to the topic at hand—I have made concessions and have admitted that not all of the articles on either side of this debate may tell the complete truth. I have been waiting for you to at least agree to the same.

        About the fact that many armed citizens are hurting themselves and innocent bystanders when using their weapons in crowded areas—here is one good source that dispels many of myths put forth by gun advocates. I am just providing the link, so that once again, I am not accused of merely quoting an entire article for my puposes:

        http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

        Let me add that this article includes 51 links to various corroborating website which are easily accessible with the numbered hyperlinks listed throughout it—even though I know you probably don’t approve of comments that appear in Mother Jones. But let me ask you why in the world you consider your mention of the NRA and “several noted police organizations,” as sources which comprise truly reliable and unbiased information, whenever they use the “statistics,” which are confirmed by the NRA? My link to Wayne La Pierre’s comments as well as the audio clip of that statement on YouTube should clearly drive home the point that his comments can change with the wind, and thus make no sense in regards to the complete policy of hostile resistance that he promotes today? What is that but an example of faulty logic and confusing evidence that changes with anyway the wind blows? To quote the NRA as a back up for your opinions about Defensive gun uses is really nothing more than another example of the chicken guarding the hen-house–if there ever was one! That’s the point I tried to make by pointing out that partisan motivations frequently abound in Senate hearings and congressional investigations! And if one examines fact checking websites and organizations, one can see that conservative Republicans are the undisputed heavyweight champions in that arena. The term “common sense,” is often just as subjective and biased as many the talking points you describe as being undeniable “facts!”

      • My writings are clear and to the point. Your writings are not. If you don’t like being told about that don’t read what I say.
        I don’t recall agreeing with you about anything, but in the future should there be anything you say that I agree with I’ll be sure to mention it. There, does that make you feel better now.
        I addressed ad hominem attacks in another post. Go check it out.
        For every website like Mother Jones there are several or more that tell a different story. I am not going to play your game of dueling websites. I stand by what I said. Most police sources agree that armed citizens do much more good than harm and I agree with that. You are free to believe what you wish. I mentioned the NRA because as far as I know they are the only one that compiles self-defense statistics taken from various sources. These statistics are posted to their website from which you can draw your own conclusion. Or if you wish you are also free to believe the statistics are bogus. At least they cite statistics, most lefty websites don’t.
        Mother Jones claims to dispel myths but speaks in generalities to draw conclusions. One thing on Mother Jones is an outright lie. It says that in the last 30 years no mass shootings have been stopped by armed citizens. Off the top of my head I know of several potential mass shootings close to where I live that were stopped by armed citizens. The gunmen had the means and opportunity and had started shooting but were stopped before it became a mass shooting. There is no point in talking about this any further.

      • Mr. Campbell,

        Here is a link to a web article which debunks the idea that armed civilians frequently stop mass shootings or shootings in general:

        http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

        I also did some investigation into the circumstances surrounding the Fast and Furious scandal which uncovered misinformed federal prosecutors, ATF officials who could not arrest private dealers due to Arizona laws that tied their hands behind them, petty infighting among members of the Fast and Furious task force, primarily used to exact revenge against Supervisor Vogel by agent Dodson, who Vogel chastised for failure to follow established procedures. and sensationalized but misleading coverage of the scandal by CBS. Attacks made against Vogel that were examined by CBS did not include his own statements, (except for several that were taken out of context) . And a consequential political motivated witch hunt intended to scandalize the Obama Administration, and to discredit the efforts aimed at improving gun regulations. The scandal was aided by gun rights advocates whose goal was to disable ATF. These included former militia member Mike Vanderboegh who has advocated an insurrection against the US government. Here is a link to a 12 page article in Fortune which details this and many other interesting yet widely unknown facts:

        http://fortune.com/2012/06/27/the-truth-about-the-fast-and-furious-scandal/

        Although I know you disdain the inclusion of pastes from various websites, I am providing two pastes each only one paragraph, from the Fortune article—first:

        “On June 1, Dodson used $2,500 in ATF funds to purchase six AK Draco pistols from local gun dealers, and gave these to Fernandez, who reimbursed him and gave him $700 for his efforts. Two days later, according to case records, Dodson—who would later testify that in his previous experience, “if even one [gun] got away from us, nobody went home until we found it”—left on a scheduled vacation without interdicting the guns. That day, Voth wrote to remind him that money collected as evidence needed to be vouchered within five days. Dodson e-mailed back, his sarcasm fully restored: “Do the orders define a ‘day’? Is it; a calendar day? A business day or work day….? An Earth day (because a day on Venus takes 243 Earth days which would mean that I have plenty of time)?”

        And the last paragraph in the Fortune article:

        “Issa’s claim that the ATF is using the Fast and Furious scandal to limit gun rights seems, to put it charitably, far-fetched. Meanwhile, Issa and other lawmakers say they want ATF to stanch the deadly tide of guns, widely implicated in the killing of 47,000 Mexicans in the drug-war violence of the past five years. But the public bludgeoning of the ATF has had the opposite effect. From 2010, when Congress began investigating, to 2011, gun seizures by Group VII and the ATF’s three other groups in Phoenix dropped by more than 90%.”

        The Fortune article is full of details about the case plus specifically quoted statements from the parties involved. Of course I can’t paste it all here, but I have given you a link to it, and if you are interested in viewing this case beyond the politically partisan version that the public and yourself have been given, you might want to read it.

      • Mr. Campbell,

        Your writings are so clear and to the point, that your previous comment listed several alternate, puzzling, and nonexistent spellings of the phase, “I don’t,” and of the word “I’ll,” in your first paragraph alone? The first is spelled as, “donat,” and the second you spell as “Iall.” Isn’t it a bitch when your writing style is criticized to discredit you?

        You addressed one ad hominen attack made against me by telling me that I deserved to be insulted, and generally ignored or misrepresented the rest. And if you don’t recall me agreeing with anything that you said, your memory must be failing—several instances are clearly mentioned in my previous comments and are there for anyone reading this thread to plainly see.

        I have also readily agreed that various websites may have differing politically motivated accounts of the same story, and I don’t play dueling websites—unless you mean including supporting links that back up statements with credible proof, is somehow wrong?—(there you go again laying down the rules about how to comment)!

        You claim you stand by what you say, but who are the “most police sources” which you say confirm your statements? And do you really think the NRA is the only authority that “compiles self defense statistics taken from various sources?” One of the articles from Mother Jones which I linked to, provides other links to more than 50 websites from which they have gathered statistics from to support their articles!

        In case you didn’t notice, Mother Jones doesn’t just speak in generalities, rather its articles are crammed full of statistics that come from solid journalistic sources! And the cases you mention where mass shooting were stopped by armed civilians (off the top of your head), are not backed up with any specifically verified information. You may also have noticed Mother Jones investigates many cases like these and finds that the “facts,” used to support them by gun advocates, are seldom discovered to be based on verifiable occurrences, or accurate accounts. But you refuse to acknowledge these other views of the kinds of events that comprise your sketchy claims.

        It would make me feel “all better,” if you just quit the insults and actually discussed my own findings. But go ahead–grab your marbles and storm out the door—if the statements of who disagree with you, threaten your beliefs with other viewpoint that backed up by solid statistics! You poor baby!

      • Mr. Johnson
        You sent me the Mother Jones website which purports to dispel certain myths about armed citizens. I pointed out that this site does no such thing. The article’s conclusions are all based on conjecture not on anything scientific. It gives the conclusions of one report but does not even say who did the report. These so called myths were formed on common sense not on statistics: If I am carrying a gun and know how to use it, I am less likely to be a victim of a violent crime than an unarmed person. Also, I am more likely to stop a violent crime from happening. You may not believe that, but if you want to prove me wrong the burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong, not on me to prove that I am right. I mentioned the police associations not as proof of the assumption but that some authoritative sources also believe it. Those sources may not even keep statistics and probably base their positive view of armed citizens on actual experience. And more importantly what does this have to do anything unless you are out to prove that guns are evil and the second amendment should be appealed, which I have been saying all along is your goal.

      • Mr. Campbell,

        You are continuing to misunderstand, or at least misinterpret, my intentions. I have never said that guns are evil–how could anyone whose father was an avid dear hunter, think such a thing? However, I do agree that sometimes through sickness, greed, or resentment, many people do use guns to commit mass murders or to kill just one other person. So their actions might rationally be considered evil, and thus should not be given an easy way to express themselves. The point of wanting improvements in background checks is to note that even private dealers should be required to conduct background checks. It should also be more difficult to make straw purchases without being required to satisfy few, if any regulations whatsoever. Myself and others believe that changes in these procedures may be do-able, and may actually stop, or at least deter, some of those whose intentions are bad, or “evil.”

        The Mother Jones articles which I gave links to, listed dozens of professional organizations and sources from which they derived the information in their articles. This information is rife with statistical evidence and examples of errors in methodology which often produce the misleading conclusions used by gun enthusiasts. I just don’t see how you can claim that Mother Jones’s investigative journalism is based on nothing but conjecture?

        I have already agreed that there is nothing wrong with having weapons for self defense in our homes, and I also understand that there have undoubtedly been cases where citizens carrying their own weapons have accomplished positive results by providing a show of force. One thing that stopped Gabby Gifford’s shooter was the brave intervention of bystanders who physically restrained Loughner when his gun jammed, while he attempted to change magazines. Certainly use of weapons and even plain physical force do occasionally stop those who could have killed many more victims otherwise. What Mother Jones’s investigations concluded was that in many cases, armed citizens who intervened only caused more injuries or deaths when assuming that they could easily bring down a mass shooter, or some other type of criminal, with a gun, and that very few of these cases have actually produced such positive endings.

        My belief has never been that all guns need to be outlawed. But I do believe that very few shooters actually require very large magazines, or the ability to purchase weapons, and cases of ammunition online, or anywhere else. And to me the idea that we need to have access to body Armour is ridiculous.

        I have also tried to explain my belief that, in some of these areas, the government might play an important role in protecting the public, but you have perceived my comments as being equivalent to advocating the banning of all guns and semi-automatic weapons. I actually think that where the latter is concerned, the public could have access to them, but only after meeting some strict requirements as well as being able to demonstrate a proficient understanding of their proper use, and the responsibilities inherent in using them—perhaps in the same way that Machine guns, (or Tommy guns) have been subjected to stringent regulations. And I believe that weapons which can easily be modified to produce fully automatic capabilities should not be sold in their present forms or designs.

        I know you don’t share my views and I don’t fault you for having opinions of your own, (as well as a technical knowledge of guns that is undoubtedly far superior to my own). But to me, the purpose of forums like this is to share honest disagreements without resorting to insults or accusations. And, I admit that sometimes I have been guilty of both.

        But we should not have to vilify each other’s views to understand that those who disagree with us are usually just as convinced of their ideas and perceptions as we are, and consider their own beliefs as offering the most logical solutions—which can then produce the most desirable outcomes.

        I’m sorry if my views have given the impression that I know all of the answers–I don’t! I just believe that we can find some practical and mutual solutions that can prevent SOME of the gun violence in America. And I also wish we could all debate this issue with less antagonism and with greater mutual respect.

        I thank you for the respectful and reasoned responses in your most recent comment. That’s attitude all of us need to observe—If we do, even all of our most bitter disagreement may actually get us somewhere—that’s all!

      • I will try one more time to get through to you. Mother Jones seems to be saying that guns are evil and their ultimate goal of making guns illegal is obvious. That puts you in the same camp of people who want to do away with the second amendment. Conclusions in the Mother Jones link you sent me are based on conjecture, not on any sound scientific analysis. What they are doing is throwing enough crap against the wall hoping some of it will stick.

      • Mr. Campbell,

        I have tried to be as fair and diplomatic as I can while defining my beliefs about the 1st amendment, but since you prefer to label me in the way that you want, and will not listen to anything I try to say, this entire discussion is useless.

        Once again, as I have said many times before on this thread, and on many other threads throughout this website, I DON’T BELIEVE GUNS ARE EVIL. And if you cannot understand plain English there is no way to convince you otherwise. Instead of appreciating my efforts to explain, you react with disdain and self-righteous anger. Rather than seeking a meaningful and respectful dialogue. You seem to want to react with hostility and seem to need venting your ideological frustrations and using me as some sort of scapegoat that justifies your generalizing, pigeonholing, and speaking falsely of me.

        My opinions about the 2nd amendment have been made known on this and on many other forums—they are that, ownership of weapons fulfills a basic human right need for self defense. I would not condemn anyone for having a personal gun in his home and defending himself or his loved ones from an armed intruder with it, or from a violent intrusion anywhere else. Where I differ with you is that I don’t think the 2nd amendment should be considered as some sort of ideological blank check that places no restrictions at all on firearms. None of our amendments is written in stone, and none of them are perfect and infallible. That’s why courts need to clarify and define their meanings at times!

        The first amendment has limits, the fourth amendment has limits. Even the voting rights amendments are not beyond being reshaped and re-defined—regarding something even as basic as taking “literacy tests,” or, illegally stuffing ballot boxes in an attempt to influence our elections fraudulently. Similarly, I question why anyone really needs 100 round magazines, or so many boxes of bullets, which can pierce body armor. Rights like these, do not reflecting true intentions of the 2nd amendment, because they also endanger the public.

        A system in which illegal straw purchases cannot be made so easily, or in which private sellers cannot forgo giving back ground checks, seems perfectly reasonable to me. You may interpret my opinions as implying that guns are evil, but that is your perception not mine! No matter what I say, you are going to keep denying my beliefs, and claiming that I support stripping citizens of all their guns. But, refusing extra safeguards that could make background checks more effective, does not represent a government plot to take away your freedoms?

        The links provided by Mother Jones in its 10 Pro-Gun Myths article do include some of its own articles, but they also reference major publications like the New York Times, Smallarmssurvey.org, the atlantic.com, several Pediatrics websites, statehealthfacts.org, oxfordjournals.org scinecedirect.com, http://www.fbi.gov, twice! injuryprevention.bmj.com, wwwcsmoniter.com, a google article about small arms, publicdata.ncbi.nlh.gov, nij.gov/pub-sum, several Gallup polls, fixgunchecks.org, whitehouse.gov, and a host of other government, scientific, and law enforcement agencies which include relevant statistics. Many of these sites also include comprehensive statistical analysis of gun issues, as well as various newspaper and journalistic articles providing witnessed accounts of controversial shootings. You want to claim that, since many of the DGU stats you have seen, come from liberal journalistic accounts of those cases,and are not valid to you? Instead, say all of this accumulated data from researchers and journalists amounts to making biased speculation. Yet your cherished belief that the government is plotting to confiscate all your guns, take away our freedoms, and drag all out of our homes like jack-booted thugs, is not completely factual—however since this has never happened in America, your fear that it will happen some day is truly based on conjecture!

        i have tried everything I can, just to make you understand what I do believe, but still you insist on misrepresenting all of it, or on getting your nasties out by slinging polarizing accusations. So perhaps you should go back to commenting on websites that reinforce your own beliefs, and admit that you already understand what someone like me truly believes. If you want some kind of self justified fight to enshrine your own erroneous opinions about the beliefs of others, then please do so! I can never convince you about anythings you don’t wan’t to believe so I won’t try anymore–does that float your boat?

      • Mr. Johnson
        You are rambling on again, but I guess it’s hard for you not to. I’ve told you several times why NICS checks should not apply to private sales but you have not come back with anything to counter my arguments. One more time: 2. The FBI’s NICS database was set up for use by FFL’s not private individuals. 2. To require private sellers to pay to go through an FFL violates constitutional private property rights. I’ll add number 3. The federal government has no authority to regulate sales within states. Each individual state would have to pass their own legislation which if they did numbers 1 and 2 would apply. You should address those arguments or argue for a constitutional amendment.
        Because you don’t understand why someone wants a 100 round magazine (an exaggeration; such a magazine would be impractical) or more ammunition than you think is reasonable is not reason enough to ban or limit something constitutionally protected. For your information body armor will stop almost any handgun round but will not stop a high velocity rifle round. So I guess you also want to ban hunting rifles. How do you propose making straw purchases harder? Unless you plan on using mind readers there is no way to tell that the person in front of you is not buying a gun for someone else.
        You are making claims that you demand be accepted as truth. What you’re doing is saying the proof can be found in a bunch of publications, but it’s up to you read them all and find the proof. That’s not the way it works because the burden of proof is on you. And you have failed miserably in making your case about anything.

      • I have been observing this silly discussion for some time and trying to stay out of it. But I must ask one question of you, Mr. Campbell. Why do you feel that the burden of proof is on anyone who questions your beliefs?

      • What up POP,
        The burden of proof is always on the ones trying to counter someone else’s beliefs. That’s just how it works.

      • Really? Cool. I believe that the moon is made of salted caramel and in order to protect yourself from crime, all you need do is carry a giraffe on your back. Prove me wrong.

      • I can prove you wrong by saying that you belong in an insane asylum. . . JK😉 No but actually, when someone says something that we believe is wrong information one of our natural instincts is to say “Prove it”. Not saying it’s right, that’s just what is done. Although I have to say I might go along with the moon being made of Salted Carmel!😉

      • I can’t address you by name because you did not identify yourself. Either you missed something or you misunderstood. I did not say that the burden of proof is on anyone who questions my beliefs. I said that the burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim that something is factual and/or true. Mr. Johnson sent me a website link which made certain disparaging claims about armed citizens and gun ownership in general, which he held out as factual and true. I pointed out that the claims were based on conjecture, not on any scientific analysis. Since he is one making the claim then the burden is on him to prove that this information is correct. It’s certainly not on me to prove it wrong. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding you may have had

      • Here is what you said: “If I am carrying a gun and know how to use it, I am less likely to be a victim of a violent crime than an unarmed person. Also, I am more likely to stop a violent crime from happening. You may not believe that, but if you want to prove me wrong the burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong, not on me to prove that I am right.”

        You are presenting assumptions as fact. As Mother Jones (and many others, including yours truly) have deftly pointed out, these assumptions are not borne out by the evidence. So unless you can offer some proof that nobody else has been able to offer, nobody is going to believe you except gun nuts. Mother Jones did not make “claims” or conjectures; the gun culture makes claims and conjectures which it cannot back up with facts.

        People have a very long history of making unwarranted assumptions — thus the need for this blog. Not so very long ago, it was considered a “common sense” truth that persons of African descent were inferior to those of Caucasian descent, and were designed by God to be subservient to them. Not only did people holding this belief presume the burden of proof to be on those challenging it, but the vice president of the Confederacy even suggested that such egalitarians were insane.

      • Not only is Mother Jones valued by journalists but its research is always top notch. It includes may statistics derived from research to back up its facts. And the Fortune article which I commented on made use of frequent full quotes from the real government agents who were involved. So I would ask Mr. Campbell if he believes these statements and quote are not accurate? If all the facts and quotes had been concocted by the author, wouldn’t he have found himself slapped in the face with a slander charge so quickly, that it would have made his head spin? However, since the Fortune article’s author is backed by quotes which are listed word for word, and has snot been the target of any lawsuits. Isn’t it safe to say that those quotes and statements made by the actual players, are real, accurate, and documented. Even if the first amendment protects the author, wouldn’t we still be hearing many more subsequent disputes stemming from his false claims? Yet people like me have not even been aware of the many false contentions Mr. Campbell makes—and why not!

        Mr. Campbell knows he is playing a game, and doesn’t seem interested in using common and respectful discourse. People like him will always be ready with some half baked excuse that supposedly explains away whatever falsehoods they may utter, as being true.

        Throughout my back and forth with Mr. Campbell, he has consistently refused to respond respectfully, even though I have made every effort to treat him respectfully. All the while, I have not really been concerned about proving anything—only in expressing views about the regulation of guns, and hoping that he might understand my points, And by the way (Mr. Campbell) I have also made many attempts to understand your comments and to concede to the ones which seem sensible to me. But, you doesn’t even seem to be interested in understanding any other viewpoints. So, I can only conclude that, as far as reason and objectivity are concerned, it’s useless for me to continue this farce.

        Any readers who looks back on my comments can see that I am not guilty of the transgressions Mr. Campbell claims. Yet he kept busy lying, insulting, and attempting to win some sort of prize for his supposed self-righteousness? I hope that, by and large you will agree with me and understand most of the points I tried to make. And that they weren’t presented as surefire solutions–just possible changes in our gun laws that might eventually be made.

      • Mr. Johnson
        I have said this several times, Mother Jones claims to dispel myths but all its conclusions are based on conjecture not solid proof. You believe otherwise, so let’s just leave it at that. If you wish to use anything that they or anyone else says to support your belief in a particular gun control measure then we can discuss it on an individual basis.
        Stop whining about what you perceive to be my lack of respect. I have been very respectful but I do find you very frustrating because of your tendency to ramble. And please be specific about anything I have said that you think is untrue and I will respond.

      • Mr. Campbell,

        You are saying basically that changing the law so that private sellers would also have to run background checks, is not legal because federal laws are not able to trump state laws—In other words your saying, it can’t be change, because it can’t be changed?

        We have this this thing called Congress, which is used frequently to make, change, or modify laws. Some bills, Like the Manchin–Toomy bill, involved attempts to make only minor changes in background checks requirements—although GOP Senator Toomy could not believe it failed, (because he felt it was the most reasonable and non -burdensome bill that had ever been proposed, for gun owners). But it was eventually not passed because the NRA’s lobbyists were able to persuade a few Democrats that their re-elections would be jeopardized otherwise.

        What I am proposing is that the laws should be changed so that Federal authority trumps state authority in regards to background checks. After all, if a state insists on taking its own course over something that potentially threatens human lives, the Federal government could, and should, step in. If say, my home state, insisted on giving black people literacy tests which would be used directly to prevent them from voting, and basically told the federal government to shove it, the Feds would then have a clear right to intercede, Or say, if my home state decided to allow the sale of dangerous fireworks which could harm or kill kids who used them on the 4th of July just because that state’s laws said that’s OK, then I believe in that case, it would be the governments right to intervene also, and to assert its greater authority.

        The thing is, if something doesn’t work and is contributing toward situations which endanger the public, then that thing should and can be fixed with legislation. At the moment, changing the gun laws may not be practical because of the powerful grip of the NRA, but if Congress eventually is able to change, or pass a law by asserting its own authority in order to protect the public, then why shouldn’t it?

        One avenue that might be taken so that the federal government’s authority prevails (over a law which recognizes only a state’s rights to regulate sales), would be to exert its power in order to regulate a practice which could both potentially, (and virtually), threatens the safety of those of of us who live in every part of the US.

        likewise, If Mississippi, had had the authority to ignore federal law, by insisting that only its own state could change Jim Crow society, then the civil rights movement may never have succeeded, and black Americans might still find themselves being directly denied the right to vote. And if a state insisted that part of their sales tax laws involved surrendering one’s first born son to become an indentured servant for a particular company, then that would go beyond reasonable state authority, and that state authority then could, and should, be superseded by a federal government that does not allow a state’s right to own slaves. (as in slave labor). And, in the case of amending the Constitution, that is also an avenue that could be taken— especially if a great deal of public support were behind changing private sellers right not to conform to federal laws.

        NO, I’m not arguing about discrimination, or whether it is reasonable to compare gun ownership to slavery, etc. etc. The hypotheticals I just brought up,are only meant to provide examples of where the federal government might assert itself, in order to protect the public—as they might also in regards to gun regulations–that’s all!

        You say that hundred round magazine would be impractical, but that’s exactly what James Holmes used in Aurora. So apparently crazy people do considers 100 rounds magazines practical when pondering the most efficient and effective ways to commit mass murder—and that’s the point! If they are practical for those who want to do damage or destroy human life, then why should such magazines be available to all shooters—both those who pass a background check and those who do not? But you already understand that point—so why try fruitlessly to play devil’s advocate? To say its impracticable because it defies constitutional laws, is firstly very debatable, and secondly is an example of circular reasoning–(the law can’t be changed since its against the law to change it)—duh!

        We are also not talking about hunting laws—we are talking about whether you or I have the right to purchase body armor over the Internet, and also, whether we have the right to purchase ammunition that can be used to penetrate body armor. So why are you equating deer hunting with having the power to kill cops who are wearing bullet proof vests? And what does deer hunting have to do with validating the rights of an ordinary citizen to purchase their own body armor?

        Straw purchases are occasionally made by people who openly admit they are purchasing for another—which is already illegal. While It may be impossible to detect everyone who makes straw purchases, if buyers knows that the person they are buying for, is mentally ill, or plans to use those guns for criminal purposes, the fact that the purchaser has to provide his own ID and other personal information, as well as pass his own background check, might make him think twice about buying a weapon for a crazy person—which is a factor that MIGHT have kept weapons out of the hands of the Columbine shooters. If a responsible person makes a purchase for a (known) mentally imbalanced or violent person, then that person should be held responsible for any actions that a shooter takes. The Columbine shooters were crazy as Hell, and they were probably already known to be unbalanced weirdos by the person who bought guns for them. We cannot prevent all misuses of guns, but perhaps we can at least prevent a few of them from falling into the wrong hands. I don’t care if someone own guns—only about making them so easily available for someone who is ready to gun down dozens of victims!

        About making claims that I “demand to be accepted as truth”—I have never demanded that you or any other person, accept my viewpoints without thinking–that’s just another silly maneuver you use to discredit my character. My last few post were very diplomatic and honest, so that I might be able to have my views understood by you. I never claimed to have all the answers and I have honestly admitted that I don’t—what about you?

        “Proof can be found in a bunch of publications?—Good grief!! Wasn’t it you who lauded the statistics used by the NRA? wasn’t it you who referred to stories carried by the press about DGUs? Wasn’t it you who claimed that most laws enforcement agencies agree with you? And isn’t it you who uses gun advocate’s sources to debunk those of another who disagrees with your beliefs. Well, if publications really don’t provide valid information—then let’s get rid of all gun advocate’s journals. Lets quite using text books to gain knowledge about chemistry, Rocket science, history, or Trigonometry? Who cares about understanding a body of knowledge? Who cares about reading articles in our local newspapers—the news is all based on speculation isn’t it?
        How are we know if Ted Cruz really exists just because the AP provides his photo and writes about what he does, or about what the weather might be like tomorrow? What about the obituary announcing aunt Harriet’s death?—ALL LIES, you say?
        You are a piece of work, and are truly full of it!

      • POP, here is another copy of a comment I made yesterday and posted near the end of the day. I noticed that you still haven’t printed it, and, since I made some errors in the original copy which have been corrected here, please feel free to post this copy rather than the first. You can always ignore the first and post this one instead also.

        Mr. Campbell,

        Here is a link to a web article which debunks the idea that armed civilians frequently stop mass shootings or shootings in general:

        http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

        I also did some investigation into the circumstances surrounding the Fast and Furious scandal which uncovered misinformed federal prosecutors, ATF officials who could not arrest private dealers due to Arizona laws that tied their hands behind them, petty infighting among members of the Fast and Furious task force, primarily used to exact revenge against Supervisor Voth by agent Dodson, who Voth chastised for failure to follow established procedures, and sensationalized but misleading coverage of the scandal by CBS. Attacks made against Voth did not include his own statements, (except for several that were taken out of context), and a consequential political motivated witch hunt intended to scandalize the Obama Administration, and to discredit the efforts to improve gun regulations ensued. The scandal was aided by gun rights advocates whose goal was to disable ATF. These included former militia member Mike Vanderboegh who has advocated an insurrection against the US government. Here is a link to a 12 page article in Fortune which details this and many other interesting yet widely unknown facts:

        http://fortune.com/2012/06/27/the-truth-about-the-fast-and-furious-scandal/

        Although I know you disdain the inclusion of pastes from various websites, I am providing two pastes each only one paragraph, from the Fortune article—first:

        “On June 1, Dodson used $2,500 in ATF funds to purchase six AK Draco pistols from local gun dealers, and gave these to Fernandez, who reimbursed him and gave him $700 for his efforts. Two days later, according to case records, Dodson—who would later testify that in his previous experience, “if even one [gun] got away from us, nobody went home until we found it”—left on a scheduled vacation without interdicting the guns. That day, Voth wrote to remind him that money collected as evidence needed to be vouchered within five days. Dodson e-mailed back, his sarcasm fully restored: “Do the orders define a ‘day’? Is it; a calendar day? A business day or work day….? An Earth day (because a day on Venus takes 243 Earth days which would mean that I have plenty of time)?”
        And the last paragraph in the Fortune article:

        “Issa’s claim that the ATF is using the Fast and Furious scandal to limit gun rights seems, to put it charitably, far-fetched. Meanwhile, Issa and other lawmakers say they want ATF to stanch the deadly tide of guns, widely implicated in the killing of 47,000 Mexicans in the drug-war violence of the past five years. But the public bludgeoning of the ATF has had the opposite effect. From 2010, when Congress began investigating, to 2011, gun seizures by Group VII and the ATF’s three other groups in Phoenix dropped by more than 90%.”

        The Fortune article is full of details about the case plus specifically quoted statements from the parties involved. Of course I can’t paste it all here, but I have given you a link to it, and if you are interested in viewing this case beyond the politically partisan version that the public and yourself have been given, you might want to read it.

      • My most recent comment to Mr. Campbell included references in one paragraph, about Fast and Furious Supervisor, (Vogel). My apologizes. The correct name of the Supervisor is Dave Voth.

      • @Gunnut I’m going to answer a couple of your points. You don’t need 30 rounds in your magazine, having them so easily available to people who wish to commit mass murders seems silly since even gun nuts admit its not needed. Taking the guns off the street, pretty much every single gun used in a crime is bought legally, or “stolen” from gun dealers who seem to have all the guns they buy “stolen”.
        The government is prohibited from even questioning gun dealers about their inventory. Gun manufacturers are making 50 dollar throwaway guns and flooding the market with them do you honestly believe that the millions of guns made and sold this way are meant for “responsible gun owners”?

      • When will we learn that outlawing the possession of an item (or attempting to modify possession) NEVER stops people from acquiring and using these items?
        You think it’s easy for former felons to get guns now, you wait until all guns in private hands are outlawed. Like meth.
        I wonder if any Americans have machine shops or 3D metal SLS machines?
        It’s all well and good to be against senseless murder (there are laws against all sorts of murdering) but inevitably locking up hundreds of thousands of Americans and destroying their lives doesn’t seem to me to be a very kind way of dealing with this issue.
        Must we jerk our knees back and forth yet again??

    • No. It did not. Please reread American History. The American Revolution began because the British levied excessive taxes on imports and forced the Colonies to buy those imports exclusively from the East India Trading Company. The Colonies were tired of bearing the burden of supporting King George’s and the rest of the British Nobility’s lavish lifestyle with no input on the laws they were forced to live under.

      There was no dispute over gun control BEFORE the War began, there were efforts by the Redcoats to remove muskets and rifles from areas they controlled, but not on a widespread basis. Read the Federalist Papers. Read Samuel Adams. Read Thomas Paine.

      • Rich people convincing poor people to fight for them so they can make more money.
        235 years and nothing changes.

        Some of it had to do with religion also. There was a big break with the Church of England at that time. That is why we have the Church/State Amendment.

      • Ken: Of course there was a big break with the Church of England at the time. Relationships were souring and the soon-to-be Americans were becoming more and more bitter about being under British rule, so such a thing isn’t exactly a surprise. But anti-British sentiment fueled the split with the Church of England, not the other way around, although many people used religion to further their political leanings and made it into a religious argument (it’s a pretty effective method of spreading propaganda). However, the Brits themselves weren’t overly anal about how the colonists worshipped and didn’t pay that much attention to the relationship of their church and local government.
        While the existence of the Church of England was a reason for the concept of separation of church and state, it was not really a reason for revolution. It was more along the lines of “hey, Britain’s whole state-sponsored religion thing has got some obvious drawbacks, so let’s not do that, okay?” Also, “separation of church and state” is not an amendment, or even anywhere in the Constitution, but came from the writings of Thomas Jefferson.

    • You are absurd! The American Revolution was NOT fought because of the British wanting to “take away our guns”, it was fought because the Colonies were tired of being TAXED without REPRESENTATION, hence the Boston Tea Party and many other acts to show their disgust in the matter. There were others that tried first to get the United Kingdom to give us representation, but it was to no avail. Then they decided to organize and defend themselves when they refused to pay the exorbitant taxes forced on them. It was at that time that some of the leaders of the Colonies realized that there was no other way to end this dispute other than to revolt and become their own nation, however, those few had to CONVINCE the others that it was necessary, and that was not an easy task. Also as a “radical” Christian, you of all people should not be quoting Thomas Jefferson, as he was not a Christian, do your research, and quit spouting the propaganda that you have been fed and so readily ate up because it suited your insecurities.

      • Actually, he is partially correct about the Revolutionary War starting because the British wanted to take our guns. The overall cause (‘stated’ cause, many historians believe it was simple greed that caused the Founding Fathers to revolt, and the vote vs tax was just a ruse) was because we didn’t feel we were being represented, but the first actual battle of the war was fought when the British came to take our guns (because they knew a revolt was imminent). However, the 2nd Amendment itself was most assuredly crafted because of the Revolutionary War–they wanted to insure the ability of the people to fight a tyrannical government if one developed.

  3. Futhermore the entire reason the gun statement was put as the second amendment was becasue the goverment of that time was confiscating them so that they couldn’t resist. The entire reason the goverment came was to enforce taxes. However, it wasnt untill they marched to take up guns did the spark the set off the American Revolution start. The 2nd amendment isn’t their for sportsplay. Guns or dangerous things. I have one and havent fired it in over 30 something odd years. Im tired, I feel sorry for your generation.

    • Once again, you’re misinformed about several things – including apparently my “generation”. (I am, alas, not as young as you seem to suppose. But thanks for the compliment.)

    • You mean to say “The 2nd amendment isn’t there for sportsplay.” Not “their” because that is possessive. When making points I believe it is in your best interest to use proper grammar for the sake of having others take you seriously.

    • Patrick, like all right wing gun nuts, you seem to be utterly ignorant of the history of the second amendment. I suggest at the very least that you read Alexander Hamilton’s comments about the nature of a “well regulated militia” in Federalist Paper #29, before you continue to spread completely false ideas about something you know nothing about.

    • The second amendment was written for “well regulated militias” Like the kind of Militia that put down Shay’s Rebellion and some of the other attempts to overthrow the early Revolutionery Government. It was to Protect the US government from it’s own citizens who would have liked to take the reins of power by force. At that time the US government did not provide arms to its militia members, they were supposed to provide their own muskets and ammo.

      • Thank you, Heidi, for the Shay’s Rebellion reference. It seems most “2nd Amendment” worshipers have no idea that our Constitution came out of that experience- in response to the rebels against our duly constituted confederation- strengthening the central federal government, which our constituted federation today. In short, the Supreme Court got the “original intention” wrong.

      • No, it was meant to enable citezens to assist the pretty much non existant army in case of invasions. Hardly what we need in the age of nuclear weapons.

    • North America is a continent rich in resources. The British government’s interest in the Americas wasn’t simply to collect taxes from colonists.
      I’ve tried to find some evidence of your claim that the spark that set of the Revolution was the British taking American guns (I’m assuming that’s what you meant). The closest thing I can find or think of was the attempt to seize American gunpowder at Lexington and Concord, but this occurred AFTER the rebellion had already started, and isn’t precisely that brazen of an act. In actuality, there was no one “spark” that set off the War of Independence. While many point to the Tea Act (and others like the Stamp Act) and the rallying cry of “No Taxation Without Representation” as the reason we declared independence, in actuality, it probably had more to do with the fact that we were already governing ourselves nearly independently, and were beginning to view ourselves as a separate nation (and at the time of the Declaration, only about 1/3 of the colonies really wanted independence. 1/3 were still loyal to the Crown, and the rest were neutral).
      You know what’s really funny? As much as we squawk about “taxation without representation” we do the very same thing to our protectorates today.

    • You are right, the second Amendment is not there for sport’s play, it was put in the AMENDMENTS to the BILL OF RIGHTS, which by the way is NOT the Constitution of the United States, as a way to readily form a state/national militia in order to protect the nation from attacks from outside forces. The second amendment for the most part became null and void with the establishment of the National Guard, but remains to this day as it is twice as hard to rescind an amendment than it is to create one. If anything your right to own a gun comes more under the Declaration of Independence and the line “that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” I for one am not saying that our government should go into people’s homes and take their guns away from them, however, I am saying that the gun show loop hole should be closed up so that those “whacko nut jobs, or criminals” cannot just walk in off the street and purchase said weapons without any background checks or waiting period. I also do NOT believe that John Q. Public has a need or use for automatic weapons unless they are hunting humans, which the last time I checked is against most World Nations laws, and God’s law. The ONLY people who should posses said weapons are the military, and police and other such law enforcing agencies. Criminals could not get said weapons as easily if they were not allowed to be sold to the public AND not allowed to be sold at a gun show with no system of checks. They would have to go through an illegal dealer, which is easier for law enforcement to ferret out if there is no legal source for such weapons to be sold. I am just asking for some reason and logic on the issue. It was not until the Luby’s incident in Killeen, that most people knew there was a weapon that would fire 20 plus rounds without reloading. If you think about it, ever since then the rise of mass shootings as gone up because of the knowledge of just such weapons. Mass shooters do not take .45’s of .357’s with them to preform their massacres, they would not suit the job as they would only be able to shoot AT 6 people before reloading and we all know that when you have to reload you are at your most vulnerable, and therefore easier to take out. I want public places to be safe again and continuing the allowance of automatic weapons to be sold to the public will not help in doing so, at least not to my beliefs.

      • Exactly. And by the way, the surest way to blow the “the Founders actually just intended the 2nd Amendment to mean that only a “well regulated militia could possess firearms” out of the water, is to point out that James Madison himself, who actually wrote the Constitution, owned firearms, as did his family, friends, etc. IF James Madison had TRULY believed that only the military should own firearms, he would have immediately thrown his own firearms in the river, as well as the firearms of his family, and demanded that ALL politicians do the same. But, that was not the case– in fact, virtually all the founders from my own state, Virginia, owned firearms– George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, etc etc. Did George Washington throw his firearms into the Potomac and swear he’d never own another one? Not hardly. The tired “only the militia should have firearms” argument is so tired, so silly, so easily refuted.

      • This brings up a point that I expect to address in a future discussion of the Second Amendment — the suggestion that the absence of an explicit right must imply an intended prohibition.

      • The problem with something not being an “explicit right” is that it could get “prohibited”. The only way to make sure something is never, ever, prohibited is to enshrine it as an explicit right. Therefore, the right to own firearms is an explicit right. Pretty cut and dried.

      • Hardly. There is no explicit right to own horses either. And they were more crucial than guns. The fact that you believe guns should be so enshrined does not mean the founders did.

      • “There is no explicit right to own horses either”

        Exactly. Just as there is no explicit right to own poisonous snakes in a city, or rare, endangered species of monkey— which is why both have been outlawed, at least in my city. That’s exactly my point– if something is not enshrined as a right, it can be outlawed. And, by the way, it is illegal to possess a horse inside city limits, in my city. Exactly proving my point. Thank you.

        “The fact that you believe guns should be so enshrined does not mean the founders did.”
        No, the fact that they enshrined it in the 2nd amendment DOES mean they did.
        Besides, we’ve far outgrown being limited to what the founders wanted. That was over 200 years ago. What I want is a lot more relevant to my own rights, frankly.

      • Whether one believes that the specific wording of the 2nd Amendment, enshrines our indisputable right to own guns or not, where does it say that we have an UNLIMITED right to own guns without any prudent regulations on their use?

        The founders did not live in a world where the personal acquisition and ownership of semi-automatic weapon with 100 round magazines, could threaten the lives of dozens of citizens in a large gathering, (like a movie theater)—so why should we assume that they would oppose all prudent forms of regulating such weapons?

        Many things, such as the poisonous snakes you mentioned, are outlawed or regulated, primarily because they pose a threat to public safety. So aren’t rapidly firing weapons with enormous magazine capacities, just as capable, (or more so), of posing a threat to human life and welfare, than a poisonous snake–especially when discharged at large gatherings or in public areas? Why should we assume that the right to own guns, precludes the possibility that guns need to be regulated? If the founders had indeed been able to look into the future and see the problems posed by such weapons of mass destruction, would they have clung to the irresponsible attitude of allowing any or all of them to be publicly owned and used, without ANY heed to the inherent dangers they pose?

        It’s true that regulating guns will not end all gun violence, but it’s also true that outlawing poisonous snakes will never eliminate all deaths due to poisonous overdoses. Does that mean that the ownership of snakes should be completely unregulated and enshrined under law? Should you or I set one of them loose in a pubic area, or could we bring them into any situation, without any heed of the danger they pose? The argument that many things are hazardous and that therefore, none of them should be regulated, is short-sighted and irresponsible—obviously!

    • Patrick the USC refers to the government that our founding fathers created, you are saying that our founding fathers new government was the one taking guns? Some type of gun control DOES NOT EQUAL OUTLAWING ALL GUNS! Maybe you are old and hard of hearing so I felt the need to CAPS for you!

      If our founders could see the power of guns these days they might not agree with allowing ALL TYPES of arms. In their day they had freaking one shot muskets for crying out loud and 30,000 americans were not dying each year from muskets brandished by fellow americans.

  4. This patrick person is full of misinformation and known debunked lies spread by those in America who want to portray Hitler as non Christian when both prior to worldwar 2 and during it many American pastors said Hitler was fighting for the lord and the US should ally with him against Communism..

    Hitler didn’t ban prayer at all. Prayer was in fact mandated by the Nazis. The Nazis were a Catholic organization that considered Christianity to be the bedrock of the Aryan culture.

    • This Patrick Person is also 60 years + and pretty much believes he knows everything already. My favorite part of his post’s are the parts where he tells others to educate themselves, after he has just finished trying to state opinion as fact. I love that there are so many people out there that truly don’t understand the difference between fact and opinion. It’s hard I know but you know I guess it’s better than speaking German….. For the record, I believe gun control is important for many reasons, however is also a tool many governments use to keep their citizens docile. I also dislike Germans. Thank you.

      • “I also dislike Germans” 1) Hitler was Austrian, not German, 2) not every German was a Nazi, 3) Lots of Nazis were Polish etc and not German, 4) Fascism was invented in Italy by Mussolini, and Hitler (an Austrian) adopted his ideas, so it wasn’t even a German idea. 5) Jews in Germany considered themselves good German citizens to their dying day, and many had served honorably and well in the German army in WW I. My (Jewish) grandfather was awarded an iron cross as a physician in the German army in WW I but he was tossed in a concentration camp in 1939. It was only because he had friends int he US that he was allowed to leave Germany, but not before frostbite in the camp had damaged his fingers severely enough that he could never perform surgery after that (he became a general practioner in a small town in NY State).

      • @Ed Hass And there were more than a few foreigners who were active members of the Nazi party, there were several units in the Waffen-SS that contained volunteers from other nations. I used to know a Dutch member, but as he’d tell you honestly the biggest reason many supported the NSDAP was because it was seen to be saving Germany from the disasters caused by the treaty of Versaille (and it’s followers) and the great depression.

        And the story of WWI veterans getting mistreated like that was not uncommon, at first they were all invited to return and then treated as criminals at best. I’m glad your grandfather was one who got away.

        There is considerable lack of knowledge regarding the lead up to the second world war, and general ignorance as to what went on. It took years of personal research to learn as much as I do as little was taught beyond incidents such as the night of the long knives. Which were a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.

    • Hitler was a NOT a christian. He can declare himself any religion, and what’s better than to hide under a false image of being christian and “pretend” to be doing the work of God. Violating all ten commandments and calling yourself a christian is the same as eating meat and calling yourself vegetarian.

      Don’t believe everything you hear and take them as facts please.

      • When someone claims to be a mathematician and cannot add two plus two, then the claim is, most certainly, false. Hitler certainly was not a Christian because he was not a follower of Christ. His actions revealed his true nature and it doesn’t take miraculous insight to know this fact.

      • I know plenty of preachers and priests who call themselves Christian and their followers call them Christian but when they molest little boys they arent following the teaching of Christ. I do believe that that is called sinning and Christ asked “Who among you is without sin” So evidntly no matter what your sin happens to be you can still remain a Christian. That includes Hitler.

      • Slave owners who beat their slaves daily, also proclaimed their Christianity loudly and often, and “good honest Christain preachers” defended slavery from the pulpit every Sunday. Lynch mobs, good Christians all, burned crosses on the lawns of terrified neighbors, dragged them out of their houses for looking at a white woman funny, convicted them without trial, and hung them from trees, and these lynch mobs were considered the pilars of good Christian communities. The purpose of the Crusades was to inflict genocide on Moslems–it backfired, as the Crusaders brought back Arab scientific and matehmatical writings and art, and sparked the Renaissance–without which the Protestant Reformation and Europe’s Industrial Revolution would never have occurred. The Catholic priest Tormquimada had Jews and gypsies and others stretched on racks and used thumbnails to force their convesrions to Catholicism. lest one think only Catholics commitetd abuses, remmeger that slave owners and lynch mobs were Protestants. Also, the witch trials, conducted by Protestants, were patrticularly fiendish – anyone could accuse anyone they disliked of being a witch, and the mere accusation was pretty much proof of guilt and an automatic death sentence–toss the accused in a lake. If she swims, it is because she is a witch and the devil is saving her life, so burn her at the stake. If she drowns, well she may have been innocent but she’s just as dead. The conductors of these witch trials all believed themselves to be good Christians. Hitler claimed he was just continuing these cherished brutal Christian traditions. Are youi saying they weren’t Christians, either–none of them? The history of Christianity is riddled with examples of cruelty and violence.

      • Hitler could claim to be Christian his whole life, do what he did and on his deathbed ask Jesus for forgiveness and go to Heaven.
        Yup he was Christian for sure.

      • According to SOME living amongst us, all you have to do is stand in a church! Bingo! Instant Christian! And be sure to wave an American flag when you do! Really helps to have photographic proof. (Doesn’t matter what you do later- spit on the sidewalk, molest a child, set up a phoney ‘charity’ and rake in the bucks, dishonor the military dead, attempt to prevent someone from voting…) You’re a CHRISTIAN!

      • Last time I checked, the only ‘requirement’ to being a Christian is to accept the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ/Messiah. ‘Accepting Jesus as your Savior’ makes you a Christian; following his teachings appears to be optional.

        Just as an aside, the Ten Commandments are not a Christian construct; they are part of the so-called Old Testament. That would be the same set of writings that many people who claim to be Christians insist were ‘wiped out’ and replaced by the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. (A claim that they seem to conveniently ignore when looking at the requirements of Leviticus, where they seem to cherry-pick which admonitions they wish to follow.)

      • Part of what you said is true, in order to be a Christian you must accept the fact that your a sinner, that Christ died on the cross to save you, and that He rose from the dead three days later. But if you are one of those people (not you literally, in general) that claims to have accepted Jesus into their hearts, but just lets it sit there, and does whatever they want, murders, rapes, steals etc…then you are not truly filled with the Holy Spirit. So yes, but if your doing that, your not truly saved.

      • People, I am lovingly coming to you to let you know that just because someone claims to be a “Christian” does not make them a follower of Christ. There is a difference between a “religion” & one who seeks Christ’s forgiveness, redemption, & love wholeheartedly.

        Religion is what you are speaking of when you speak of those who do wrongfully in the “Name of Christ”. Religion is man doing what he/she thinks they can do to reach God (or, at times, “become God”), whereas, God has offered His redemption freely to all who truly believe.

        Here is a better explanation : John 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

        To graciously refute a previous response, quoted from JustMyWords – “Last time I checked, the only ‘requirement’ to being a Christian is to accept the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ/Messiah. ‘Accepting Jesus as your Savior’ makes you a Christian; following his teachings appears to be optional.”

        This is what the teachings of Christ say: James 2:14 “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

        18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

        Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.”

    • Hitler a Christian? He was raised Catholic, as was Himmler, but they both had long since rejected any form of Christianity by the time the Nazi party existed – ever heard of the Ahnenerbe? That was basically the Nazi “bureau of the occult”. What form of Christianity (except modern hillbilly American neo-nazis who call themselves “Christian”) had any teaching remotely like the Aryan race?? The stories of Atlantis, were they from the Bible? Was the swastika ever a Christian symbol? The beginnings of Nazism were largely rooted in the Thule Society, a totally anti-Christian occult secret society. How about the Runes used by the SS – Christian? Totally occult. Hitler also promoted the old Germanic, Teutonic gods in place of Christianity, saying that the latter was weak. You people really believe Hitler was Christian?? Come on!! Just because Hitler may have USED a claim to being Christian, to be accepted by a nation of mostly nominal Christians, doesn’t mean he had anything to do with being any sort of Christian in reality.

      • Regarding Hitler being Christian. I suggest you acutally read Mein Kampf and see his references to his avid belief in Christianity. What some researcher wants to make up about the SS is no more proof of their UNbelief in Chrisitianity than what the Masons do in their rituals. Just remember that the German Army’s Motto was “Gott Mit Uns”

  5. you can take shots at Hitler all you want but Europe would be in better shape today and not on the verge of becoming an Islamic republic if his vision had succeeded. Bet they wish they had a strong leader like him now.

    • “Take shots” is an interesting choice of words. Unfortunately, you may be right. There are people out there (in more countries than one) who wish they had a “strong” leader just like him. Hmmmm…. let’s see, NAZI regime or “Islamic republic”? For my part, I’m glad the choices aren’t limited to the two.

    • You lose the bet. Most of us are sane, you know.

      And the claim about Europe being on the verge of becoming an Islamic republic is so ludicrous I have difficulty believing it was meant seriously. How exactly would that happen?

      Sorry, but do you even know what Europe is? You certainly seem to have never been here.

      • If you frequent British news sites, and read their comments sections, you’ll see Tony’s kind of attitude everywhere. There is a rather prevalent belief that Muslims are “taking over” the UK (very similar to the attitudes towards “Mexicans” here in the US). And that’s not even touching the kinds of things people say at football/soccer matches. As an American dragged into their world in the past couple of years (my fiance is English) I was absolutely shocked how blatantly racist and specifically anti-Muslim Brits can be, and just how many racists there are. We have a stereotype about Brits being polite people who wouldn’t dream of saying anything offensive, but they’re not too far removed from their colonial days. So Tony’s comment? Yeah, until I re-read it and realized he said “they”, I assumed he was British.

        Of course, this doesn’t make his comment any less ludicrous, but it also doesn’t mean he’s never been to Europe.

      • It’s not even unique to the UK as far as Europe goes Renee. Anders Breivik’s 2011 massacre in Norway was part of his protest against perceived Muslim influence in Europe amongst other things.

    • @Tony

      Shots at Hitler? Strong leader?

      St. Peter’s hairy toes!

      Are you even a compassionate human being to make such an absurd statement?? Or are you just a religion based, Fear mongering propagandist?

  6. I’m not claiming the more loose gun laws would have stopped the mass murder of Jews, but this article does leave out important facts. In the updated 1938 German gun laws, a Jew was totally prohibited from owning a weapon. While the laws on Germans were loose, the same cannot be said about the main victims of the German regime, the Jews.

    • True, and I did point out that Jews were prohibited from owning guns under NAZI rule. But as I’ve stated elsewhere, I don’t believe this was a key in the development of the Holocaust, or that anyone could have prevented it merely by having more citizens (Jewish or otherwise) own guns.

      • I understand your opinion, but obviously Hitler himself had a different opinion of the situation than you did. This is proven by his statements in the above article. Historical precedents do tell us something. There is a reason why totalitarian regimes remove guns from their enemies, a quite simple one. People who have no means to defend themselves can usually be pushed around more easily and more comfortably.

        On a side note, in my opinion, the title of your article is misleading. There is no actual “myth” in regards to Hitler’s gun ban. He actualy DID take away guns from a particular group of people. And whether you agree that it “enabled” (Although, I’m not really sure what kind of definition of enabled you are using in this particular instance) him or not, it really cant be argued that it didn’t make it easier.

      • I would say that the main reason totalitarian regimes often remove guns from their enemies is because they can. Jews weren’t just prohibited from owning guns; they were prohibited from doing a lot of things. The notion that Hitler enacted a gun ban is itself misleading, to say the least. For Jews, the prohibition from gun ownership was just part of a total package of oppression; it wasn’t something that was singled out as being particularly vital to maintaining that oppression. Regardless what Hitler said on the topic, it appears that he didn’t consider it terribly crucial, or else he would have imposed (as many people believe he did, hence the word myth) a gun ban on ALL citizens. Does prohibiting citizens from owning guns make it easier to control them? I doubt if it does to any significant degree — it just prevents adding more blood to the mix. Successful rebellions are generally carried out not by just armed citizens but by armies (although admittedly the distinction may be slight in some circumstances.) It seems to be the latter to which Hitler referred, since he mentioned “conquered Eastern peoples” rather than the citizens of his own nation.

      • Jews were stripped of their citizenship, no gun control was needed. Only citizens could own guns and those gun control laws were already in place in 1928. Nazi’s didn’t come to power until 1933.

      • James, we have the most well-armed populace in the world, yet they do their master’s bidding out of fear and propaganda. They are “pushed around” quite nicely to support the upper crust in charge. It’s called “usueful idiots.”

      • James, the “myth” is that Hitler was allowed to get as powerful as he was because he took guns away, not just from Jews, but from everyone in the country; that the reason he wasn’t stopped was because no one (no one AT ALL) had any means to fight back, despite an eagerness to rebel, and if only they were allowed to keep their guns, they would’ve fought against him. That’s simply not the case. We have this image of a populace living in complete fear, like 1984 or V for Vendetta, who would stand up if only they had the power to do so, but that’s not really how it happened. It was more like when you’re on the highway going a little faster than you should and a cop pulls up beside you. You become afraid for a moment but only because you’re worried about getting caught doing something wrong. This was what life was for most Germans. Hitler’s tyranny wasn’t a reality in their world, and his government was pretty much like any other to them.

    • Jews are no “victim” of anything except their own greed and wish to subjugate European people to their whims and their fake gods. Germans have never had any duty to even allow jews to live in their country, and sure have no duty to allow jews to rule them or run their finances.

      • Oh, isn’t this lovely? A jew-hating freak. Do the whole world a huge favor, Bob and kill yourself. And do not under any circumstances, reproduce. I find it hard to believe that a woman would go anywhere near you anyway, so I’m not too worried about that. Women are repulsed by bigots.

      • And the Bob Fairlane’s of the world are just ticked off that the Jewish people consistently rebuild and have a long history of surviving after devastating oppression. That the Jewish people refuse to just roll over and take their bigoted and racist beliefs.

  7. Why were jews in Germany? So many white people cry about the “holocaust” (the deportation and work encampment of jews and other slags exploiting Germans), but why are they so sympathetic to non-European, anti-white people who have time and again, and even now, declared that whites, especially Germans, are “goyim” or cattle to serve them?

      • I agree with you that even with guns in every household Jews would not have been able to stay their deportations, but I also don’t believe Hitler was a gun-grabber.

        Now Dianne Feinstein…there’s a gun-grabber, and *not* a “nazi” – as far as I know😉

      • I re-read your reply to Bob…
        But nowhere in it do you explain why the Germans had individual muffles installed at Auschwitz.

        You watched and examined and weighed the evidence in the videos I recommended, and yet you still support the standard Holocaust “narrative” in its’ entirety?

        Including Irene Zisblatt and her story of defecating diamonds?
        Of her escape from inside Auschwitz’ “gas chamber”?

        Do you approve of what Congressman Tom Lantos did in misleading the American people into war in 1991?

        As a veteran of that time I don’t take that escapade lightly. You did watch “The Last Days of the Big Lie”, right? And saw what Lantos did?

        The cremation industry even today says it takes 1 hour for every 45 kilos of body weight. (referenced in the first video) so…

        …were the Germans somehow able to override the laws of physics and thermodynamics during the war?

      • It’s hard for me to take Holocaust deniers seriously, and those videos have already been thoroughly debunked. But maybe I’ll have a go at them myself in a future column.

      • P.O.P….it’s bad enough that you have all these misinformed right wing trolls infesting your board. Must you allow these vile, disgusting, sub-human anti-Semites to post their filth as well?

      • My initial attitude was that even they deserve to have their say. But after opening the door to them invited an avalanche, I decided to put a lid on it.

    • No Jew or Jewish text has EVER declared that ANYONE is “cattle to serve them”. The word “goyim” does not mean “cattle”. It means NATION. Even in the bible, God refers to the Jewish people as a “goy gadem”…a great nation. Goyim mean nation, you idiot. You get your “information” from propaganda hate sites and phony propaganda versions of the Talmud. Either you are a liar or you are incredibly stupid. Likely both.

    • @Bob Fairlane

      Invest in an actual translation dictionary of a language before trying to state what a word means. Or you could try asking a person that speaks the language before assuming you ‘understand’ the meaning of words.

  8. What a shame. Hitler took the rights away from a group of people. These rights included bearing arms… Then they were slaughtered. Anyone who thinks that guns wouldn’t have made a diffrence needs to think about this… what if the Jews had guns… and the Nazi’s didn’t… and the Nazi’s pulled that shit… what would have happend… would it have made a diffrence? Of course it would… Never trust a goverment to protect you who doesnt trust you enough to allow you to protect yourself!

    • Again, you seem to be conflating an armed citizenry with an organized, trained and well-equipped military force. I am not aware of any evidence to support the assumption that armed citizens can effectively resist an oppressive government. I have seen, however, a great deal of evidence to the contrary. Many Americans want to believe that owning guns makes them invincible. It doesn’t. There’s always somebody with a bigger gun.

      • Patrick I would like to note that the “rag-tag bunch of plow shears wielding good guys vs. red coats” fantasy you have of the American Revolution, is one of just that, fantasy. Be sure to thank the French next time you celebrate your freedom from Britain.

      • P.O.P. im sorry but i have to step in on your last comment.In the battle of Lexington and battle of Concord they (the Colonists) were just armed citizens.All of history tells us that a determined people will eventually win out.(forgive any grammer errors Im not collage trained)

      • My impression was that a major reason for the British army’s loss in America was their absurdly long supply lines, added to the British government’s insistence in running the war from London. When marching orders and basic supplies are months in transit, you’re somewhat at a disadvantage against an opponent who can re-supply themselves locally.

      • I have a question. When we talk about Jews being able to arm themselves, I am assuming this is would be the period between 1932 and 1940? Has anyone looked at what kind of guns, availabilty and cost. In other words whether or not Hitler did or didn’t allow them to have guns, would there have been an availability that was affordable to actually make a difference. I assert that you can’t compare it just as a yes or no argument.

      • Someone has seen ‘The Patriot’ too many times. If Mel Gibson says it’s true, then it is, isn’t it?

      • I would like to make a comment about the notion, repeated often here that “The redcoats were a well trained armed military force… they lost”

        After 75 years of fruitless war against each other, the English and the French had essentially devastated their own armies, and severely damaged their economies. In this circumstance, the Americans took the opportunity to strike against a moribund fighting force, and the French people crushed their own government. This is so often the case with revolutions. The Russian revolution took place after the Russian army had been mangled during World War I, the Irish revolution came after World War I had done the same to the British army, and the Chinese revolution came after World War II had effectively destroyed the Chinese army.

        Absent the special circumstances, I do not believe the American revolution would ever have succeeded. The British military of 1725 or 1825 would have won easily. The savaged British army of 1775 lost.

      • By many accounts, one of the nations with the lowest rate of private gun ownership is Tunisia. Odd that they were able to bring down their government (and touch off the whole “Arab Spring” with NO Second Amedment!

    • As I’ve said before, it was just part of a broad package of oppression. Why single it out? Jews also were prohibited from holding public office, and eventually from practicing any profession. Why not focus on that instead? As far as gun-toting citizens, there was at least one famous example of a German Jew taking up arms against NAZIs. It led to a little thing called Kristallnacht — which, far from impeding the holocaust, accelerated it.

      • That’s right: the killing of the German diplomat in Paris by Grynszpan is what set off the uproar Nov. 9, of ’38. You’d be amazed how often that isn’t mentioned when the story of “Kristallnacht” is reported upon. Wonder why…

        But the Paris shooting was the second 1930’s incident of gun violence by a Jew upon a German political figure:

        Gustloff was shot in Switzerland by Frankfurter in 1936.

        Grynszpan -whose actions in ’38 precipitated “Kristallnacht”- is rumored to have survived the war.

    • You assume that the Jews or any others in Germany had closets full of arms and boxes of bullets to take. In the 1930’s in the depths of the depression most people would have sold any unnecessary possesions long ago just to get something to eat. My mother told me stories of them selling the drapes, glasswear, clothes, basically everything they had to keep from starving to death. If there were any guns TO confiscate they would have been few and far between.

    • The Nazis took the guns from the Bolshevik commies. Patriotic Germans kept their guns.
      If Hitler hated Jews, then why were there Je2wish Nazis?

  9. Hey guys!
    While you argue with one another our government is gaining tyrannical momentum. You can deny that liberals are trying to gain a stronghold by protesting everything that freedom is, but it does nothing but help them tighten their grip. It does not matter whether Hitler said these things or not, it is the philosophy he used as do others. “What Luck for Rulers That Men Do Not Think” is a truism no matter who said it first and it also explains why every great civilization has been conquered. The belief that something unimaginable cannot happen is exactly why it does. The signs are all around us and history is screaming warnings at us.
    Wake up …. you are being boiled like a frog!
    The pendulum needs to swing the other way NOW,

    • I’ve already noted that Hitler’s most potent weapon was neither the bullet nor the ballot — nor the suppression of either. It was propaganda. And the rhetoric his accomplices spouted was eerily similar to that being spouted by today’s right-wing polemicists demonizing “liberals” (as in effect the NAZIs did). That’s not an observation I make lightly; I long ago grew weary of people conjuring up the specter of Hitler every time they encountered someone they didn’t like; I’ve already devoted an article to that topic. But it’s hard to ignore how Limbaugh, Beck, et al seem intent on mimicking Goebbels. And their words in turn are obediently parroted by the masses. If indeed there are frogs being boiled, that’s the oil they’re stewing in.

      • As an information security engineer, I’m going to give you these points to think about.

        1) If we allow to operate powerful tool such as vehicle, why not firearms. vehicles can do just as much damage or perhaps even more than firearms if you are creative enough. If anything, I would make everyone go through real driving school with booklet record tracking and spend literally 4 figures before getting just a license. Make it like Germany today. Wouldn’t that be safer for society? Go figure.

        2) Power hungry people likes to take away power from honest people. Government workers are people too. They are not more or less capable than normal civilian like us. A fat cat that feeds with green by their own authority means power that is evil.

        3) We don’t need a government this size to automate or efficiently improve and reassure our infrastructure and safety. LADWP hired High School grad with 0 electronics background to work in Water and Power. What a great example, go figure. Don’t argue that they’re private company, they are subsidized by the government running monopoly for the government.

        4) Guns kill way less people than cigarettes and car accidents. Sure you’re tire of hearing this, but u don’t seem to get it.

        5) Bad guys never respect the law. If you think that sweeping guns out of street including walking every single home and start sweeping all the firearms from civilians will stop criminals from importing other true “assault rifles” (select fire weapon), which civilian never have in the first place, will make it a safer place, then you are delusional. Just because the government wants to tie people’s hand doesn’t mean the criminals will give you their wrist to cuff them.

        6) If you are uncomfortable and do not understand firearms really well in a free country where 2nd amendment is clear, then it is your own problem, irresponsibility that you have not to learn about it. Just because you’re uncomfortable and believing in mythical facts doesn’t mean that you can infringe others’ freedom. That’s right!

        7) Swiss seems to have a good no criminal record compare to us. If anything, we need to educate our children better, which public school should not be funded by government, but should allow competition for kids to compete by getting into a quality school. This will make tuition cheaper, cheaper books, better quality teachers, and enrich this country where people are sitting on their ass too much relying on government to do practically EVERYTHING. You perhaps maybe forget how to breath right now as we speak.

        8) Government suppose to be peace keeper and service its people, not the other way around. When you have to be fear for the police and what the government is doing to you, that’s when you know that country is running by the largest Mafia. Look at all unconstitutional war that we were in, everyone of them after the WW II. U.S. government is also the largest arms dealer. They don’t know how to sell anything else better either. Is that all justified?

        9) Last but not least, you assume that people owning guns are not civilize to believe that owning guns will increase injuries and death. If anything, it is bunch of “durb durb” that intoxicated their mind with any kind of substance and operate machinery such as firearms and vehicles that causes these tragic events. I’m not going to blame criminals because that’s what they are and it is our job to put them away.

        With all this said, you should really understand the world better before screaming out loud saying that I’m not young and I know what had happened. Of course you don’t because you believe in the government so much that you are so blinded by the real facts that we are all humans, and humans make all kinds of mistakes. Some even make evil decisions. Take more time to think about things before you go “ANTI” gun to people.

      • Hoo boy. Don’t people EVER get tired of regurgitating the same soundbites over and over? All the bits of misinformation you’ve churned out here have already been addressed in these pages. I, for one, don’t intend to repeat myself ad nauseam.

      • Same here, and I live in Canada where civilians aren’t allowed to own military grade weapons. Our rate of gun related homicide has been steadily decreasing the past few years. In 2011 it was 87 gun related homicides nationally. We have gun registries, even if PM Harper is talking about removing the long gun (rifle) registry currently. My entire region of BC (the Thompson/Okanagan/Shuswap or Central Interior if you wish) has had only 2 shootings the past few years.

        So hmm, over 11 thousand gun related homicides or 87 gun related homicides. Which sounds better?

  10. P.O.P. so as not to repeat yourself ‘ad nauseam’ you’re invited to leave this board. Additionally, your ‘I’ve got an answer for everything’ said here approach to rebuttal is annoying and ridiculous. And furthermore you accuse posters here of many many things that you yourself are in violation of. Primarily in this late post of yours where you employ the typical ‘liberal (socialist)’ tactic of accusing your opposition of doing the very thing you (they) do. As exemplified in this statement you made above, ” ‘the rhetoric his accomplices spouted was eerily similar to that being spouted by today’s right-wing polemicists demonizing “liberals”….I long ago grew weary of people conjuring up the specter of Hitler every time they encountered someone they didn’t like;’ ” When you don’t agree and want to discredit someone simply accuse them of being ‘right-wing polemicists’ who demonize “liberals”, as if liberals need demonizing (they don’t need to be demonized as they do a fine job on their own of being demonic).

    Must be fun being you.

    Anyway, you may go now! Bye. I’m sure there are at least a thousand other boards you can write on to make a nuisance of yourself, troll that you are.

    • Well, my posts, and particularly this one, have elicited some curious comments, but none so strange as the suggestion that I forgo being a “troll” on my own blog! In any case, if you’ve read any of the material I’ve written in these pages at all, you know that I never attempt to discredit anyone by just referring to them as “right-wing polemicists”; I discredit them by presenting solid facts that contradict their claims. The fact that they might be considered “right-wing polemicists” isn’t what makes them wrong; it’s just a motivation for their choice to believe in fallacious arguments. You’re on the right track by pointing out it’s a common propaganda tactic to accuse others of what one does oneself (I’ll be discussing that in the future), but it isn’t primarily “liberals” who do it. (And if you really do equate “liberalism” with “socialism” then there’s probably not much point in even trying to reason with you.) Yes, I really am tired of people playing the Hitler card; and yes, I can’t help noticing that many people who do employ some of the same rhetorical tactics that the Third Reich propagandists did; this is not the same as saying that they are themselves like NAZIs — which is the kind of thing they often say about “liberals”. It’s irony. Look it up.

      • It is ridiculous when people claim Hitler was a Christian. That is about the same as saying Satan is a Christian. How ill informed can you be to the doctrine of Christ. Let’s find out: Christ said, “a house divided against itself cannot stand”, and the Bible refers to the Jews as “God’s chosen people”, so if Hitler was a Christian why did he not only ignore Christ’s words, but also fight against God’s people. Toattempt to use pictures of Christmas trees and church officials in the same room with Hitler to make the case that he was a Christian really becomes problematic when you look at his actions. Call him just about anything you want, but he wasn’t a Christian my friend.

      • You may have a different concept of what constitutes a Christian than Hitler did. And it’s difficult to say how sincere or committed he was to Christian beliefs. But he did have them. And he was not,as many people claim, an atheist.

      • Would you kindly provide a link to your articles which blast the Hitler card being played endlessly against GW Bush? I am no fan of either of these two men but am curious as to your balance of opinion.

      • The Hitler card is being played endlessly against Bush? Really? I rarely see it at all these days. It did happen with a fair amount of frequency when he was in office. (“The difference between Hitler and Bush is that Hitler was elected”, etc.) But that was before this blog was launched. But I’ve touched on it here, noting that the comparison was also overblown for Bush — though there was at least some factual basis for it, as both Bush and Hitler were (different types of) right-wing extremists. Comparing Obama to Hitler, on the other hand, is not only overblown, it’s not even in the right solar system; it betrays a fundamental ignorance about Hitler, fascism, “liberalism” AND Obama.

        It’s also off-track to focus on my “balance of opinion”. Opinion is not what this blog is about. That’s not to say it’s 100 percent opinion-free; that (in my opinion) is not even possible. But the meat of these discussions is fact, not opinion. I suppose I could provide more “balance” to the facts. But there are plenty of people out there doing that already — which is why this blog exists in the first place.

      • Reading the Second Amendment, it seems to me everyone who is in and who plans to join a well regulated militia should have the right to bear arms.

        Folks are free to disagree with this interpretation, of course. I hope that those who do disagree really take it to heart by buying a nice pistol for their newborns, loading it, cocking it and putting it in the infants crib so that the baby might have his or her Constitutionally protected right to bear arms and personal safety protected. As the child’s grip strengthens, so will the gene pool of the United States.

      • Brian Woods, that is quite disgusting and certainly not the way human beings need to deal with animosity. It doesn’t matter what side of the fence you are on. This is where proper guidance and aid comes in handy, not genocide. I really hope you don’t actually feel this way, and that this thought was a slip of the tongue. Especially when it comes to children, no matter what their gene pool is.

  11. Indeed, there was no need for the Nazis to pass a law like that, because the earlier Weimar government had already passed gun registration laws. When I asked Cramer about his reasearch, he said, “The laws adopted by the Weimar Republic intended to disarm Nazis and Communists were sufficiently discretionary that the Nazis managed to use them against their enemies once they were in power.” In other words, they didn’t need to pass additional laws. The Nazis did pass a weapons law in 1938, but that only added restrictions to the previous law, especially for Jews and other “non-citizens.”

  12. very informative and entertaining thread, thank you P.O.P. i’m a republican “fiscally”, not religious, love guns, but i really love reading arguments from people who don’t understand the definition of fact. just from this thread i can see most people can be easily manipulated and misguided by some well placed misinformation disguised as facts. which is in fact how the christian religion began, along with most other divine deity based religions.

  13. It looks like I DO need to address Holocaust denial in the future. Not because it in itself is worth giving any attention to, but because it makes use of some significant propaganda techniques often put to better use.

    • Attention Holocaust deniers: Sorry, but you don’t get to use this forum as an arena to wallow in your own excrement — there are plenty of other places where you can do that. (And chances are I’d still feel that way even if I hadn’t personally talked to Holocaust survivors.) I’ll discuss your pathetic disease in the future. Until then, kindly crawl back under the rock whence you came, where you may salivate over your laughable “proof” to your heart’s content.

      • Since I got sent this (for some reason, as I’m not “sharpnickelz”) I must give ya a heads up:

        >> “sharpnickelz” said: ” I believe that Hitler meant what he said in the quote “History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.” regardless if any sort of gun control was instrumental in Nazi Germany’s conquering of Europe or not. It rings true that a […]

        Then you (POP) said: “You’ve articulated the position of much of the Second Amendment crowd quite nicely, and it may even have some relevance to the Founders’ intent. But it does not alter what the Second Amendment actually says.” <<

        The "quote" of Hitler is (you might know) from the fantastic "Table Talks" collection. And it is fantastic. In it, there are other alleged "Hitler" gems like:

        "As for the ridiculous hundred million Slavs [….] goes straight off into a concentration camp."

        I've seen that one before a couple times.

        But then right below that damning "Hitlerian" rant is this:

        "At harvest time we will set up markets at all the centres of any importance. There we will buy up all the cereals and fruit, and sell the more trashy products of our own manufacture. In this way we shall receive for these goods of ours a return considerably greater than their intrinsic value. The profit will be pocketed by the Reich to defray the price of the campaign. […yadda yadda yadda] Why should we thwart the longing of these people for bright colors?"

        Right. That's Hitler talking. He's spending time on "bright colored" textiles. That's "believable".
        .
        Just so ya know… what is and is not believable and more importantly, tenable.
        :

      • They won’t answer. They’re too busy asking how so many bodies possibly could have been buried and/or burned. (The answer is, it wasn’t easy; it took some very focused evildoing.)

    • It seems German state has already addressed the issue of “holocaust denial.” If you question the official version of the holocaust, you are sent to prison in Germany. Ernst Zudel was sent to prison for researching the Holocaust and proving that certain elements of the official story were nothing but baseless propaganda. If they are imprisoning people for questioning official dogma, there must be something wrong with the official story. Of course, “holocaust denial” is a boilerplate propaganda term. It is disingenuous and insinuates that anyone who questions the “official story” of the holocaust is somehow mentally defective. What I know for certain, is that anyone who throws you in prison for asking questions about the Holocaust is worse than a Nazi.

      • Verbalvandal, While I do not agree with the policies of countries that would prohibit speech questioning whether aspects of the official account, if you will, of the Holocaust is entirely accurate, to conclude there is necessarily something wrong with the official story simply because there is a ban is absurdist reasoning. One ugly aspect of humanity – and I don’t think any group is exempt from having elements of this – is that we have consistently persecuted people in groups other than our own. The Holocaust marked a zenith in that type of conduct, and so some governments passed laws to try to stop that type of thing from snowballing again.

        As far as your assertion that killing 6 million, or 20 million, or 2 million, or whatever number of people the Nazis killed – and, as you know, they killed millions of people – being worse than putting a couple of people in prison, well, we all have our values. Many people, including myself, would say you need to have your head examined.

        Your closing statement is particularly absurd when one considers that the Nazis, too, threw people in prison for asking questions. And they tortured them for asking questions. And they murdered them for asking questions. You know this. And because you know this, you, Verbalvandal, should be in prison.for the safety of the rest of us. Question away, but you statements lead to the inescapable conclusion that you are a sociopath.

      • “What I know for certain, is that anyone who throws you in prison for asking questions about the Holocaust is worse than a Nazi.”

        Worse than people responsible for 50 million deaths? Man, they really are bad. And by the way, people go to prison not for asking questions about the Holocaust, but for lying about it.

  14. I believe that Hitler meant what he said in the quote “History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.” regardless if any sort of gun control was instrumental in Nazi Germany’s conquering of Europe or not. It rings true that a conqueror would want his subjects to be unable to resist.

    Without the 2nd Amendment, all other Amendments are worth little more than the paper they are written on. “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good” – George Washington.

    “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” – Alexander Hamilton.

    “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

    It is plain to see that America’s founding fathers considered being able to stand up and defend one’s rights a center piece in a free and open society. We have a right to form a militia and stand up against our government if they (for whatever reason) disobey the constitution and the checks of the democratic process. This nation was built on revolution, on the idea that to be TRULY free, one must be able to fight for that freedom, to have a way out when the walls of a crumbling government come crashing down. In this democracy, we are essentially representatives, is for and by the people. For that to be upheld, the 2nd Amendment is the foundation. It is no coincidence that the 1st Amendment lays the foundations of freedom (speech, religion, press, assembly) and that the 2nd Amendment immediately after gives the way in which the first is even able to exist. Written words are meaningless, only through our unalienable rights are those words given substance. Or you know…we could take our governments “word for it”.

    • You’ve articulated the position of much of the Second Amendment crowd quite nicely, and it may even have some relevance to the Founders’ intent. But it does not alter what the Second Amendment actually says.

    • As is usual with gun nuts’ comments;

      The George Washington “quote” is a complete fabrication which apparently was created in the 1990’s

      Despite some time spent searching, I was never able to find a citation for the Hamilton quote. It allegedly comes from the Federalist Papers, but none of the many (right wing) sources I found for it mention where in the Federalist papers it is supposed to be.

      The Franklin quote is essentially true, but has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the second amendment.

      On the other hand, Hamilton, in Federalist Paper no. 28, directly addressed the notion that the militias existed to protect citizens from the government. He dismissed that notion as a specimen of mental illness.

      The amount of disingenuous blather from the right about the second amendment is overwhelming; particularly when the Founding Fathers made their intent so clear in a document available for free to anyone.

  15. I believe that Hitler meant what he said in the quote “History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.” regardless if any sort of gun control was instrumental in Nazi Germany’s conquering of Europe or not. It rings true that a conqueror would want his subjects to be unable to resist.

    Without the 2nd Amendment, all other Amendments are worth little more than the paper they are written on. “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good” – George Washington.

    “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” – Alexander Hamilton.

    “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

    It is plain to see that America’s founding fathers considered being able to stand up and defend one’s rights a center piece in a free and open society. We have a right to form a militia and stand up against our government if they (for whatever reason) disobey the constitution and the checks of the democratic process. This nation was built on revolution, on the idea that to be TRULY free, one must be able to fight for that freedom, to have a way out when the walls of a crumbling government come crashing down. In this democracy, we are essentially representatives, is for and by the people. For that to be upheld, the 2nd Amendment is the foundation. It is no coincidence that the 1st Amendment lays the foundations of freedom (speech, religion, press, assembly) and that the 2nd Amendment immediately after gives the way in which the first is even able to exist. Written words are meaningless, only through our unalienable rights are those words given substance. Or you know…we could take our governments “word for it”.

    • I believe that you consider every point you make as being absolutely true, and it may even appeal to basic logic that, dictators would like to see their people disarmed so that they can’t resist being controlled. However, the message I get from 2nd Amendment advocates, about the immanent dangers to our people, rest on some very dubious assumptions about the way things currently are, and how unscrupulous government might try and control our American citizens.

      In a country like ours, it is very unlikely that the military, and/or, the government (or) its people, are going to lay down and let any deranged leader take complete control of our lives. I just don’t see how (for example) the leaders in the pentagon, and/or most police forces in our country, would unquestioningly accept the authority of a deranged President wanting to control every aspect of our lives? We have a system of shared power, along with checks and balances on those powers. So any President with such a scheme would face impeachment, and be expelled from office faster than you can say, “Second Amendment.”

      Personally I think it obvious that our founders recognized the value of being able to defend ourselves with a gun, but I don’t think that such a guarantee comes with a blank constitutional check, authorizing anyone, or any group to possess whatever kinds of firepower they want. Do we really need tanks, or flamethrowers or handheld grenade launchers to defend ourselves? And, would we overlook the likely scenario that a bad person with these kinds of weapons could be immensely aided in carrying our any type of crime they desired, including an act of terrorism–just by being allowed the unchecked and unquestioned right to own any kinds of guns, or the accouterments that come with them?

      On a lesser basis, I just don’t think it should be as easy as it is, to purchase an assault weapon by circumventing legal requirements at gun shows or on the Internet. The government should be actively promoting sting operations to arrest, charge and prosecute, those who ignore basic measures to restrict sales to excluede those with criminal backgrounds, or, who are just considered mentally unstable. And, why in the world should an average citizen be allowed to purchase body armor as well as 100 round magazines over the internet, as many mass shooters have actually done. Also, why not form a national registry, and seek to make gun regulations and preventative measures standard throughout our country?

      I have owned and operated motor vehicles for over 40 years, and the fact that I must register them, obtain an operators licence, insure them, and renew my license every few years, and even submit to physical qualifications like wearing corrective glasses, has never resulted in personally losing my license. That will only happen if I consistently drive recklessly, or deliberately get stinking drunk before getting behind the wheel. And, in this case, just as in the case of restricting guns and certain aspects about them to average citizens like me, the issue at hand is not government domination, or an attempt to deny common sense. Rather, it involves the fact that restrictions on our rights under the second Amendment, and many others, are designed in order to assure public safety—(PUBLIC SAFETY)! Something I am certain the government has a right to do, and, is authorized to do in order to assure the common welfare of us all!

      As always, those who turn this American debate into a matter of freedom against tyranny, totally forget that sometimes our rights must be modified to protect the common good and safety of all our citizens.

      As of yet, those who preach about suspicion and government power grabs, have not once provided me with a single reasonable scenario of just how a government take-over would happen in America, or even if such a usurping of power is possible under our system. Over all, I think the supposed dangers of being prevented from owning (any) gun one wants, are simply unlikely fantasies, rather than a problem that’s vital for us all to fear. We can own personal weapons without going to extremes, and we can let our common need for public safety overrule the fears constantly dished out on us by groups like the NRA!

      Of course, laws can effect the behavior of people—otherwise, why not get rid of the police force itself, or disband the military, or even deep six the entire court system? However, we would not even last ten minutes if we had to drive through downtown Manhattan during rush hour, without the aid of stop signs and traffic lights. In a Democracy like ours, sometimes rules and regulations are good for us all! And by providing them, our government is carrying out its Constitutional responsibility to provide for the common welfare of all of us! Rugged individualism may sound good, but historically every positive action undertaken by civilization depends on some degree of cooperation from us all!

  16. I think what all the gun “rights” people don’t seem to realize is that all the US Government needs to do to “take over” is to shut down water and electrical power and transportation on the interstates for about 3 weeks, let the US Citizenry fight it out with each other over what remains on the shelves in their pantries and grocery stores until their ammo runs out, then drive through the bigger cities with tanks and offer food and water in return for complete compliance. After all the chaos of neighbor killing neighbor and the resulting thirst and hunger the citizens will pretty much do anything. Stockpile away….if the Government wants to finally take you over, it will. In fact, they’ll use YOUR guns and let YOU do part of the job by forcing you to defend yourself against your starving neighbors. Point of fact, the answer isn’t stockpiling guns, but actually getting informed about your local polictial situation and getting involved in it. Local. Your neighborhood, town, county, and state.

  17. Wow.. P.O.P., I have never witnessed a more pompous or self absorbed and self righteous individual in my life. You know everything and how everyone should live and what they should believe. Right? Why even bother with a blog like this when you have no room in your inflated head for an honest debate?

    • You, kind sir, may be completely right, in my humble opinion. (Aren’t you always?) I really don’t see how your comment contributes to an honest debate here, but hey, I’ll allow it anyway. Because I’m just that kinda guy.

      • About what? My supposed arrogance and narrow-mindedness? I’ve actually acknowledged he may be right, even though the evidence is overwhelmingly against it. If you peruse the pages of this blog, you’ll see all kinds of open and honest debate on matters that are debatable, and even some on matters that are really not. As for proving him wrong about any of the claims he makes in his own arena — well, maybe I’ll get around to that just as soon as someone proves me wrong for saying that the moon is made of watermelon.

    • Oh, look! An Alex Jones fanboi!!!

      How cute! Do you have posters of The Conspiracy Theorist In Chief above your bed?

      Your problem, “Alex”, (besides your man crush on Jones) is that you hate facts. Facts really upset you. That’s a shame.

  18. Pingback: Gun control - Page 55

  19. “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order.” – Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Translation: Hitler’s Table-Talk at the Fuhrer’s Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)

    • Interesting quote. It indicates that Hitler considered the real threat of allowing “conquered Eastern peoples to have arms” to come from military and police units, and not just from civilian gun owners.

      • Thank you for that astute and sophisticated analysis of my competence, character and philosophy. Unfortunately, you totally missed the point of my comment. And you didn’t alter the quote one whit.

      • To further expose you as a brain-dead, neo-nazi, gun grabbing liberal…

        Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons
        11 November 1938
        With a basis in §31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p.265), Article III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of 13 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 237), and §9 of the Führer and Chancellor’s decree on the administration of the Sudeten-German districts of 1 October 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p 1331) are the following ordered:

        §1
        Jews (§5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1333) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.

        §2
        Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew’s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.

        §3
        The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in §1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.

        §4
        Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of §1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.

        §5
        For the implementation of this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.

        §6
        This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts.

        Berlin, 11 November 1938
        Minister of the Interior

        On Nov. 8, the New York Times reported from Berlin, “Berlin Police Head Announces ‘Disarming’ of Jews,” explaining:

        The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been “disarmed” with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment.1

        On Nov. 9, Adolf Hitler and Nazi officials made the following order: “All Jewish stores are to be destroyed immediately . . . . Jewish synagogues are to be set on fire . . . . The Führer wishes that the police does not intervene. . . . All Jews are to be disarmed. In the event of resistance they are to be shot immediately.”

        http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/registration.html

      • Unfortunately, this brain-dead, etc. has already beaten you to the punch, pointing out (see above post, which you ostensibly are commenting on) that Hitler put a great many restrictions on Jews, including firearm ownership. But for everyone else, he significantly LOOSENED gun restrictions. So I suppose you can say that he did indeed “defend” an individual’s “right” to own guns — so long as the individual wasn’t Jewish.

      • I am telling it to everyone who wants to read it. But I recognize that some people (as you yourself have so ably demonstrated) don’t particularly enjoy hearing the truth.

      • The question, brain-dead liberals, is who is/are “everyone else”?

        Are they his Nazi party-mates?

        What about the Jews and the Communists or his political opponents?

        Again, are you trying to say Hitler defended “gun rights” or the right to bear arms just like the founding fathers did?

      • Wow, what an archetype of a “loaded” question. Depends on what you mean by “defend”. And “gun rights”. And “bear arms”. For Hitler AND for the founding fathers.

      • You can’t answer it, right?

        Then is who is/are “everyone else”? Did that include the Jews and Hitler’s political enemies or the communists?

        Just answer the question, brain-dead liberal.

      • Okay kid, it’s abundantly clear that you’re just jerking off and trying to waste my time. So it’s time to invoke my “five or six strikes and you’re out” rule. Out of consideration for my readers, I want comments here to contribute something relevant or interesting. If you can’t do that, you’ll be barred from further posting.

      • Believe it or not, Nazi’s are considered right wing, not left. Look it up in most any dictionary. It’s were we get our definitions from.
        Oxford: “An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.”
        “The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach”

  20. This is grossly misleading at best. Hitler DID confiscate weapons from Jews, and he did so with the registrations that were previously forced upon the population. Just because the actions of the government prior to his rise to power had already begun a campaign against the people does not change the facts.

    Registration/Confiscation… Genocide. PERIOD.

    You can dream whatever little dream you like, but history stands as the monument to truth; from Germany and the Jews, Turkey and the Armenians, USSR/Stalin and the Ukrainians, and in 1994 in Rwanda and the Tutsis.

    • I have stated that Hitler did not ban guns. He didn’t. I have stated that he actually loosened gun regulations. He did. I have stated that he denied Jews many benefits of citizenship — including but by no means limited to ownership of guns. This also is true. Where exactly is the misleading again?

      • You may have already answered this somewhere else, P.O.P., but what is your stance on the above mentioned topic? Hitler loosening gun regulations to everyone else, and denying ownership of guns to the Jews, that is. Do you feel what he did, in this case, was positive, negative, or irrelevant to the end result? Can you compare it in any way to America today? Thank you.

      • Well, I certainly wouldn’t approve of singling out one segment of the population to deny them gun ownership without good cause, especially given that it was within the context of denying the benefits of citizenship on a broader level. As I have indicated, however, I see no reason to believe this materially affected the end result. (More about this in a future post.) No, there is absolutely no comparison to anything in America today. No one here is being singled out as ineligible for gun ownership on the basis of race or creed.

      • Form over substance, and if singling out a group is going to part of your analysis (something I believe is a red flag but far from the only point of analysis), with the amount of money in politics today, you should be particularly analyzing with respect to any legislation – gun-related or otherwise – whether it is a matter of those in and connected to power (power in a real sense, not just official titles) asserting control over the rest of us. Democide and other government persecutions over time have not been limited to race or creed; as an example, Mao had children turning against their own parents, and the Nazis murdered no shortage of communists irrespective of race or creed.

        I am really interested in seeing the intellectual contortions you are going to have to come up with to devise a scenario in which, had Jewish civilians been appropriately armed with assault weapons, fewer would have ended up surviving than would have justified, if you will, the increased level of day-to-day gun violence. Bear in mind the United States had 12,000 gun deaths last year. In the last year that CDC statistics are available, around 250 children were victims of gun homicide nationwide. The Germans killed an average of more than 250 children a day from 1935-1945, and they didn’t really get around to the bulk of the murdering until 1942.

      • POP wrote: “No one here [in America today] is being singled out as ineligible for gun ownership on the basis of race or creed.”

        That’s certainly true, but it’s worth noting that that hasn’t been true in the past, particularly since it has a bearing on the individual ownership vs. militia debate. Some of the arguments I’ve seen here hinge on quotes or writings by Founding Fathers referring in one fashion or another to an armed citizenry. This is in turn interpreted, or merely assumed, to mean any law abiding citizen, thereby allowing the poster to argue, directly or by implication, that “militia” refers to the entire population.

        What is clear from the historical record, however, is that this is a modern myth. Gun ownership was restricted to while males over the age of 18; no women or minorities. In fact, if anything, gun ownership was further restricted rather than expanded. For example, during the various Indian wars in the South before the Revolution, blacks were allowed to join the militia, but by the time of the War of Independence, Southern fears of servile insurrection caused them to pass laws banning blacks from militia service so they could not own guns.

        Now, here’s the punchline: after the Constitution was ratified, who was allowed to join the militia? White males between the ages of 18 and 45, the same people who were allowed to own guns. Interesting coincidence, no?

        Now, this doesn’t answer the question of which came first, armed citizens or militias. Certainly, in the very early years of the colonies, militias were formed from the colonists who owned guns, but based on what we now know, it would seem that gun ownership was not as widespread as modern myth claims, or at least we can say there is no evidence supporting the myth. This is supported in part by the fact that after the Constitution was ratified, some states had laws that required all eligible members of the militia to own guns, while other states issued guns (then took them back when the militiamen were mustered out). If the majority of white males owned guns, or even just a large portion of them, why have a law requiring militiamen to acquire guns for service, or why issue them? It seems rather that this was done because there were too few “armed citizens” to form effective militias. Moreover, there is no evidence these laws were strictly obeyed, or enforced.

        As such, history seems to suggest that when the Founding Fathers referred to an armed citizenry, they were actually referring to the state militias in a roundabout fashion. The officially sanctioned and created militias were composed of citizens who were required to be armed, one way or another, but the citizens themselves did not constitute a militia by default. In other words, by the time of the Constitution, it was the militias that were creating an armed citizenry.

        It can be confusing when someone like Madison refers to armed citizens and militias virtually in the same breath, but in point of fact he was using two different terms to refer to the same entity.

        http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SpitzerChicago.htm

        http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FinkelmanChicago.htm

      • Very true. Indeed, a major motive behind inserting the Second Amendment into the Constitution was the protection of slavery — not freedom. “Militia” often was used to designate armed contingents who kept slaves in line, and hunted down runaways. And lest we forget, the “conservatives” who are so vehemently against “gun control” now were very much for it back in that remote era called the Sixties when the Black Panthers liked to stroll around sporting firearms.

      • Actually Prof I’d argue that point with you. At the time the second amendment was drafted the continental army was downsized to the point of uselessness and there were several revolts against taxation. A suitable militia was thus necessary federally in case of needing to deal with such a scenario again, plus it’s been suggested that the protection of state rights to have a militia (at a time when the states and federals were less trusting than even now) made it easier for the federal government to get permission to have a standing army.
        Were militia used to deal with slaves? A very good chance. Was slavery a reason for the second amendment? Nothing I’ve seen suggests that beyond present day hearsay.

      • So, where, would you say, the line is then? At what point is there good cause & to what degree do we allow, as citizens, the government to pick and choose who they feel is allowed weapons? Obviously, there are certain universal understandings of who should and should not be allowed the right to weapons, such as criminals, the mentally ill, possibly a certain age range, etc.. I think there needs to be regulations, don’t get me wrong, but there is a huge difference between regulations & bans. What if they were to put a ban (of any kind) on the internet or cell phones? Both of these are very dangerous tools as well. How do you feel about this? And, at what point do you allow freedoms to be taken? What are freedoms? Maybe we consider things to be freedoms that should not be? Just trying to cultivate some good discussion to see if we could all work together to devise a wise plan of action in the aid of decreased fatalities in the use of these guns. Why not? Why not use this time, not to bicker, but to actually come to some brilliant conclusions that one could even submit to congress?

      • My own take on this is there is a huge difference between banning assault weapons and banning cell phones. What I find very interesting is that people didn’t make a big deal out of it when Reagan called for such a ban. But when Obama does it, he’s clearly Hitler reborn. In any case, it wouldn’t bother me if all guns were banned, though I know that will never happen, nor do I know of any good reason it should. But I don’t depend on guns for my peace of mind. Note also that there is a big difference in prohibiting gun ownership for, say a person with a history of violence and prohibiting it for Jews, Muslims or atheists.

  21. On the first view yes, it seems that he loosened gun control. On the second view you will see that he loosened only gun control for his organizations. There where no permits neccessary for Hitlerjugend, Lower Member of the NSDAP (called Untergruppenführer), Nationalsozialistische Kraftfahrtkorps… and many other Hitler or Nazi related Organisation. Means they had a right to carry a firearm even without any permit. He also invented (or extended the law originaly made in the Weimar Republik) that permits are neccessary and Weapons can only be held by responsible persons. You can imagine what that means if the whole bureaucracy where already Members of the NSDAP. Just by saying everyone can get a permit doesnt mean everyone gets a permit, expecially if the person who makes the decision is a member of the NSDAP. The weapon law was actually a tool for them to select party members and Nazis from the rest of the people. Giving permits to one group, deny permits to the other group. Thats also the reason why it reads on first hand generous but if you want to outfit “your” people with firearms you cannot deny ownvership in the law itself, you have to establish a tool that puts you in the position to lead weopons where you want them to be.

    Generally banned where gypsies, gays or Jews or everyone who was suspicious of being non faithful.

    The intention of the weapon law established 1938 is pretty clear. Outfit Nazis with weapons, take away weapons from everyone else.

    • There’s some truth to this, of course. But the bottom line is, Hitler did not “ban” guns, as often claimed. And while keeping guns out of the hands of the oppressed made it easier to oppress them, it doesn’t follow (as often presumed) that allowing them guns would have enabled them to resist NAZI conquest successfully. It would, however, have made that conquest a little bloodier.

      • That´s right, we will never figure out what would have happend or what would have not happened. To state that Hitler “banned” guns is as false as to claim that Hitler loosened gun laws. The truth is that he used the weapon law to strenghten his position and the people and organications supporting him. There was actually no need for him to ban guns for NSDAP Members or the Hitlerjugend. Due to theyr indoctrination they would have died for him anyways, weapons in theyr hands was actually a advantage.

        From a personal viewpoint: Armed Jews and the armed majority of Germans wouldn´t had stopped him starting a Genozide but maybe it would had ended earlier. It wouldn´t also had stopped him attacking France or Russia as the Propaganda Machine worked very well and the majority of Germans didnt either know about the Conzentration Camps as well as the lies about Poland attacking Germany. For the whole majority of Germans the beginning of the war was a mix of self-defence and fighting for rights that they lost in the Versaier Contracts. Hitler wasnt evil, he was the good guy for the most. That he would act dishonest was unthinkable.

        Anyways, Jews fighting for their life inside Germany, not in a conzentration camp, would have opened the eyes of much Germans (and the rest of the world) way earlier. Splinter Groups (like the Rote Kapelle or die Weiße Rose) could have started being more effective, not in Killing Nazis, but in getting peoples attention. As i said, its a personal viewpoint but in my eyes Hitlers weapon control of course let him do what he did, at least it made things easier for him.

      • It’s important to note that the 1938 gun measure did not introduce any new restrictions — and it relaxed some that already existed. It was designed to make access to guns easier for those considered German citizens — which excluded Jews and gypsies or other “vagabonds”. It was actually Hitler’s enemies, and not Hitler himself, who were proponents of “gun control”.

      • I doubt that the designers of the 1928 weapon law where Hitlers enemys but they made things easier for him as the law invented something called “Bedürfnis”, maybe the best word for this would be “Justification” to own a weapon. The law of 1938 also didnt disarm the Jews, that happend way before by the Gestapo and the Police staitions as they got a directive from the NSDAP not to permit a “Justification” to Jews. The law of 1938 just wrote down what already happend. There was no need for him to “ban” weapons (see the explanations in my last post). If you have a tool that allows you to lead weapons where you want them why should you ban them? In fact, the law gives him the control of all weapon ownership as just the party decides who has a Bedürfnis and who not. You dont really believe that a member of “The Weiße Rose” would have gotten a weapon license just because they would have been a German Citizen.

        If you read the law word by word and state that, due to that law, all german citizens had easier access to weapons you are wrong, only NSDAP Members (and the others i listed) had easier access to weapons while the Nazis used the Tool “Justification” to get it out of the hand of everyone else.

        That the weapon law stated “German Citizens” is just common sense. What else should they have written in there?

  22. I am a Pinko Left Wing Liberal Sterotype who currently has a 45 Ruger precisely BECAUSE of nutters like Patrick. I do not think I can protect myself from government with anything but sound reasoning and an ability to communicate. Individual nutters though can be kept off my front porch with the Ruger. Thanks for the balanced responses P.O.P. but I think Patrick closed his mind quite some time ago, 60+ years would be my guess. Mine was opened 60+ years ago and since that time I have learned lots of information that was simply unknown in the 1950’s. Science marches on, some people do not.

  23. I would like to add some things about gun ownership in our present days, and in particular concealed weapon permits. In light of the CT shootings, the laws that were set in to place worked. The crazy killer was not able to buy the guns quick enough to kill so the CT killer had to steal his parents guns. With that said if there had been one or even two people there with a concealed weapon there might have been a far different circumstance. And here is proof, this is a story that includes a county sheriff officer that happened to be at the scene of the shooting when one of these crazy’s showed up. Just proof gun ownership works. But I ask why is this shooting not all over the internet? I wonder? maybe because it shows that armed citizens will fight back? Guns will always be there in the black market it is just a matter of are you going to give the citizen’s like weapons to fight back with. Second thought why destroy guns when you have people like the man in Korea in August that stabbed 8 people in a subway. Does that not prove it is the person not the guns? San Quenton had three violent felonies a day in 1997. How many of those do you think were done by guns? Let us use our brains here and blame the people and not the tools.

    http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Two-wounded-in-theater-shooting-4122668.php

    • By all means, blame the individuals. But the thing is, guns make it much easier to kill than knives do. Guns, after all, were invented specifically to kill with.

      • Yea, swords were made for killing. But I am sure it was a good thing they were kept around for many nations when their lands were being invaded. and the problem with us good guys getting rid of the guns is that the bad guys will still have them or get access to them. Here is a good video that I found and it will clear up all these problems.

        http://www.flixxy.com/political-systems.htm

    • Having lived and worked in some rough areas of the US and the world, I feel as though I ought to chime in somewhere with my own experience. This post tripped my wire. First, I would like to posit that “proof” of any opinion is not going to be found in anecdotal evidence supporting one position or another. Yes, perhaps once an officer of the law was present when someone was about to shoot up the place and he intervened successfully by virtue of his owning a gun. If that’s “proof” then does my forthcoming counterexample refute that one instance and thus whatever argument that you are trying to make, right is right?

      In my case, someone walked into our street level room in a garage of an industrial zone via an unlocked door with a .45 semi-automatic pistol leveled at my face, as I was closest to him. He said, “Don’t look at me, or I’ll shoot you!” I raised my hands and dropped my gaze to the floor. My girlfriend, who was standing next to me thought it was a joke and laughed for a moment until she realized what was going on. There were 2 others in the room. If any of us then had a pistol in hand, do you think that he would not have shot all of us straight off? Anyway, we were calmly terrorized by this man for more than an hour. At one point, he tried to drag my girlfriend off from the floor where we were lying to presumably rape her in the next room. When she made a loud, crazy fuss, he dragged her back, put a jacket over my head and counted down from 10 to zero, to force her to comply. I remember a lot of shouting and crying in the room and considered that I was living my last moments then. This went on for a while, with a couple more countdowns, him walking around the room. pointing the guns (he said that he two) at the backs of our heads. He emptied our pockets, drank a half-bottle of wine (OK, this was a recording studio) and pocketed another, telling us a couple of stories. As her prepared to leave, he ordered one of us to go out and start his car. He then walked around the room and warned us that he would kill our friend if we were not on the floor, as he left us, when he returned in 20 minutes.

      He left, taking the friend with a pistol pressed against the back of his head to the next town where he was released. Ultimately, we were physically unharmed. My girlfriend sought counseling because she felt responsible for leaving the door ajar and for thus precipitating the PTSD symptoms that I developed a couple of months later. In that time, a housemate, sleeping in the next room from me awoke with a pistol pressed to his forehead and had his room robbed. I am pretty sure that he would have died had he a gun in hand or if he tried to access one that he might have hidden under his mattress, if he indeed had one. He was later mugged, smashed with an empty quart beer bottle square in the face– his jaw broken and his lower bridge of teeth cracked and cut through his chin. I am pretty certain that in this case, even a gun in hand or one in a quick-draw holster would not have helped him beside jeopardizing his life should he have attempted to use one.

      I could go on. My point is that from my own, personal experience, the dynamics of a violent confrontation are a lot more eccentric than what handgun proponents might suppose. Truly, I think that you guys lack a lot of imagination in the configuration of your scenarios. You also tend to have a blind spot to the instances when having a handgun (or an assault rifle) present would have intensified a toxic situation. I think it’s a form of aggressive or self-interested, willful naivete on your part.

      When I once turned the last corner toward home and saw some kids playing in the street then run into the (never) open front door of our place, would it have helped me/them/us if I had a pistol then, when I went room to room looking for them? They stole our rent money that day. Would having a pistol have helped anyone when I learned later that one of them had tortured and killed our beloved cat? I was enraged and shook my first in his face as a security guard held him for the police. How about the one time that a chain-swinging vagrant blocked a 4-lane road as I rode my bike in to work at 5AM? Would having gun in hand have helped me or him when he spit on me? I could have pulled mine out and shot him without anyone ever knowing about it. Then again, if he had a pistol then, I might lived through that otherwise mundane urban confrontation.

    • It was a trained LEO in the San Antonio theater shooting! Not some minimally trained “Dirty Harry” wannabe with a CCW permit and a military fetish. What about the guy in Georgia that was found with a bullet in his head, surrounded by several of his weapons. Not a single one of the high powered weapons that he had on his person at the time of his death saved his life. And what about the woman in Pennsylvania who gained some notoriety for openly carrying a 9mm to a 5 year old, kids soccer game? Her guns did not protect her from being shot to death by her husband. it goes both ways. But I do enjoy your ability to spew poser patriot talking points with aplomb.

  24. Pingback: Two quotes to ponder during this tough time

  25. Like any post here, PP doesn’t source his claims and they’re very biased and one-sided. You are the one dispencing propaganda not busting it.

    • Jesus, can’t someone please come up with a less original juvenile insult? That one is boring me to tears.

  26. So I’m sincerely a little confused, are you trying to debunk the fact that Hitler enacted a total gun ban, or trying to point out that Hitlers gun control measures were an effective means to arm his allied populace while at the same time disarming his targeted Jewish populace?

    • The first point is the real focus of this post. The second is a matter of interpretation rather than demonstrable fact. I’ll have more on this topic in the near future.

  27. After reading all of these responses, I just want to advocate having symbolic reasoning and logic along with formalized debate as part of the core curriculum in public schools. I am amazed at how many groupings of hybrid illogical fallacies and invalid reasoning are being flung around all willy-nilly. It seems to be disproportionally originating from the same posters who insist you educate yourself or insist you are somehow both brain dead and liberal. You’ve managed to construct quite a haven for paradox here. Which is unfortunate, because if both sides of the debate are unable to sit down and find at least SOME common ground, however will we move forward together, which we must do in order to survive intact. I know others here are accusing you of being arrogant, I think the best way to describe you is having the patience of a saint. I read some (well most) of these comments and look at it like a baking experiment gone horribly wrong. It’s like arguing with paint. Really, stupid paint. Bless you and your attempts.

      • I agree with Christin completely. Patience of a Saint PP. I just watched the Piers Morgan/Alex Jones interview on CNN and although I’ve had time for the real AJ in years gone by – felt that he had done some valuable work waking the US people up to some relevant issues – he really has lost his way now (if not his sanity) and represented the pro-gun crowd perfectly, rabid, irrational, illogical, chaotic reasoning, like a three year old about to be dispossessed of a hammer. If Alex Jones is representative of the right wing gun lobby then, America, you have a problem.

        The comments and quotes here illustrate the depth of the division between the pro-gun and anti-gun protagonists. Pro-gunners come across as illogical, irrational, using any random fact, argument or insult they can draw on, preferably at full volume, to shout down reasonable debate. No amount of reasoned argument can convince the toddler mentality that being without the hammer is better for everyone but PP you’re doing a sterling job trying.

      • I agree with Christin, about this debate looking like a baking experiment gone horribly wrong! Your saintly patience is a given. I also think you’ve absolutely argued your case. Shame the same couldn’t be said for the pro-gun side but then, they really don’t have an argument, however many times they bring up Hitler, or Mao or any other historically inaccurate data to back up their side. Guns are not cars or knives. Guns were designed specifically to kill people, not to transport people around or cut things up. They have no other purpose. As soon as you convince yourself that you need one to survive, you sign your own potential death warrant along with one for every individual you meet who makes you feel threatened or afraid. Without a gun, different levels of social reasoning have to be attained. Possibly why the least eloquent are always the ones who want to hold onto their guns. It’s their only way out of any reasonable argument. In the end, if it doesn’t agree with you, you can always shoot it.

        As an illustration of how hard a struggle it is to find any pro-gun advocates able to debate the issue in a reasonable way, Alex Jones recent interview with Piers Morgan on CNN really has to be seen

        http://www.upworthy.com/angry-gun-advocate-loses-it-live-on-cnn-in-the-most-bizarre-interview-ever

        Whatever you want to say about Alex Jones, in this interview, he is clearly several chips short of a jackpot.

        . Pro-gunners, whether they mean to or not, nearly always come across as rabid, illogical and irrational, given to resorting to insults and threats when their inability to present accurate facts, figures or reasoning is exposed. Think of a 3yr old with a claw hammer, having a tantrum about giving it up and you’ve about reached the level of pro-gun debate in the US. Nothing anyone can say will convince that 3yr old that removing his hammer will be safer for everyone as well as himself but any adult who lets him keep it, knows the risks, don’t they? It’s both amusing and sad to observe this debacle, but I’ll take my gun free country over yours any day of the week. Whatever statistics you want to pull up about Europe, in most parts of it, one can live peacefully without any real fear that someone random will whip out a gun and blow you away. Sure, mass shootings do happen, infrequently, and sure, there is violent crime here (gun related crime tends to be gang-related only) although much less than Americans like to believe, but I’m happy to know that 99% of the people around me are unlikely to be able to shoot me dead if I break down in my car outside their house at night.

        I am absolutely not an advocate of the status quo. I think the State machinery of modern government is crippling all our lives, our societies and our children’s future, and that our current poor values will contribute to the corruption of society to the point of collapse. I don’t think that will be solved or prevented by people toting guns but it might well be hastened.

        ‘Withheld’ above is right, if the US government really wants to take away your freedoms, all it needs is to take away your food, water and health care for a few weeks, give you time to shoot each other over the last can of beans, and then come swooping in with the biggest war machine on the planet (or a lot of unmanned drones) and clean up the mess. 50 guns in your house isn’t going to change that, it’ll only lead to the death of you.

    • Really interesting discussion and I agree with Christin 100%. We need history taught in the schools. We need logic and debate taught in our schools, and NOT from the Texas curriculum either!!

  28. I will ask you to bare with me because I am not the best of spellers and I will have a few grammatical errors in this post of this I am sure. I personally believe that people should be allowed to carry and maintain their weapon systems be it a hunting rifle or something with which to defend their homes. I also believe that not everyone has the capacity to use those weapons in the proper manner because on the whole people are stupid scared animals. Before you jump on my case and say that not all people are stupid think about this a “person” is an intelligent and rational creature capable of great compassion and thought while “people” are terrified of anything that does not fit into their neat little box of what they believe to be correct and true. So yes the second amendment does give all american people the right to bare arms with which to defend themselves. Everyone is so up in arms about assault weapons but what is the purpose of weapons if not to assault another living creature be it for food or be it for any other reason. All weapons are made to assault that is their very nature and why they were created be it a humble rock or a tricked out AR 15 with laser sights and a pistol grip. I am myself a military veteran and before joining the military had never fired nor owned any kind of rifle and had no desire to own any kind of rifle. Once I joined the military I was taught everything I would need to know about the weapon systems I was firing from the basic name of said rifle, to how to break it down and care for it, all the way up to how far and fast the round would travel for every second after it left the muzzle. As I said I believe that every one should be allowed to own a weapon but they should first learn to use the weapon properly and prove that they are of sound mind before being allowed to purchase one. Because as someone much smarter than me said guns don’t kill people, people kill people. A gun is nothing more or less than a tool it has no goals no ulterior motives in and of itself. If a gun is wielded by a bad person then that gun will be used to do evil things. If that same gun is wielded by a righteous person then that gun will be used to do righteous things. Is a gun any more dangerous in the hands of a well trained man than a sword is when it is in the hands of a master? No it is not the only difference between the two is the distance at which you will be killed. Both of those weapons can be taken up and used by the untrained to kill a person and yet it is not the sword that people seem to fear it is the gun. What makes the gun so much more dangerous in people’s minds is not the fact that it kills it is the fact that it kills at a distance.

    • Well, you’re certainly free to believe people have a right to own a gun. And you’re right — but they have that right largely because of the Supreme Court and/or other rulings and laws. It’s not spelled out clearly in the Constitution, as I’ve already discussed (and will discuss further soon). You make a very good point about people (at least some of them) being “stupid scared animals”. But here’s the thing: will giving them guns make them any smarter? Or will it just allow them to do stupid things a lot easier? Not all gun owners have your kind of training. And by no means do all of them have the kind of presence of mind that a person needs to have when armed.

      • My point is train the people who want to own guns that way they are not a danger to themselves or to others. I do apologize if I did not make that clear. I have read the posts on here as a buddy of mine posted this on his face book page which brought it to my attention. I believe you to be a well educated and patient person. And you are right giving a person a gun will not make them any smarter but I have also said a person has the capacity to be intelligent and compassionate it is only when we gather in large groups that capacity is diminished. Many people do not wish to think for themselves and will go with the crowd so as not to stand out.

  29. As per the Hitler, gun restriction, and the Holocaust argument I fear you have fallen for the great fallacy that empowering an individual with a greater chance to defend themselves is somehow useless because they wouldn’t be able to stop a genocide. This isn’t your fault of course. Many people see 6 million and believe that it is an all or nothing sort of affair instead of millions of acts of individual theft, molestation, and murder, each with their own circumstances. I would just say that as you were not one of the tens of thousands of German Jews, or millions of Jews in occupied countries denied their right to self defense by previous governments and occupiers alike, you cannot ever state that said individuals would not have benefited from the possession of a rifle, grenade, mortar, explosive, or hang gun.

    • Well, I don’t believe I said it would have been “useless” for the Jews to have been armed, but I did say I haven’t seen any reason to believe they would have stopped the Holocaust. And nobody has yet shown me any. It’s interesting that you start listing military-style weapons, which the Jews would have been unlikely to possess even if they’d been allowed to own guns. The NAZI troops, however, did have them in great supply. Not to mention tanks and other armaments that could have handily overpowered even a Jewish citizenry armed to the teeth.

  30. Thanks, POP, for this article. The reason your conservative detractors are so upset is because they live in a fantasy world where bumper sticker knowledge and forwarded internet memes replace facts. You know that when they first encountered that alleged quote from Hitler’s speech, they never once bothered to actually seek out an objective historical source regarding gun laws in Germany to see if it was true. This is why, for example, they can get outraged at Obama for doing something that many other presidents, including Republicans have done in the past. When the Fox anchor says “Obama didn’t do X,” they’re not going to check and see if say, George W. Bush, also didn’t do whatever “patriotic” ritual is in question.

    The reason why these morons believe that Jews could have prevented the Holocaust with guns is twofold:

    1. They don’t know anything about the Holocaust or how it began. It was something so gradual, and unexpected, that organized resistance was not possible until it was too late. The roots of the Holocaust began on the Eastern Front, where there was armed resistance. That resistance didn’t stop millions from being killed.

    2. They live in a fantasy world where they believe that “good guys with guns” can stop bad guys with guns, wherever. Despite over 50 mass shootings in the last few years, not one has been stopped by a “good guy with a gun.” Yet still these morons insist that if THEY had been in that theatre in Aurora, or at Sydney Hook Elementary, they would have whipped out their Glock and saved the day, just like in a movie. They often believe this because NRA and other gun publications print stories of people who used guns in self-defense(curiously, none of them stopped a mass shooting). What they don’t publish are stories of failed self-defense, accidents, and people having their guns used against themselves.

    In the real world, even if you have a gun you are at an extreme disadvantage vs. a person who is more prepared, and planning to commit a crime or massacre. This goes double if they are armed with a semi-automatic rifle. Good luck taking them out with your .38 revolver, John McClane.

    In the same vein, the Jews of Germany or Poland could not have just immediately resisted the Nazis on the fly. You have to remember that their population included plenty of elderly and children- many had no military training, there were no logistics, and often nowhere to hide. Also at the time, they had no reason to believe they would be exterminated. They believed that even though they were mistreated, Germany needed them to produce for their war machine.

    It’s also good to keep in mind that resistance movements were very active in occupied Soviet territory and other occupied countries such as Yugoslavia. Even with heavy weapons and massive amounts of aid from Allied powers, the Axis forces were still able to hold onto these regions, often with 2nd rate formations(sometimes made up of foreign collaborators) without too much trouble. Outside of Albania and Greece, it was outside conventional military power which drove the occupiers out.

    Lastly there’s one more important point. Gun nuts(and yes, they are gun nuts, and this is coming from a person who owned multiple guns including semi-auto Romanian AKs) constantly tell us that gun control doesn’t work, that it only stops “good people” from getting guns. So if that is true, then Hitler’s alleged gun ban, or the real ban on Jews owning guns, shouldn’t have worked. How can one claim that gun control doesn’t keep people from illegally obtaining guns and then in the same breath say that gun control was responsible for the Holocaust?

    Either gun control keeps guns out of the hands of certain people or it does not- period.

    Lastly I want to address what Alan said about Hitler’s Table Talk. While there are some disputed quotes in Table Talk, much of it is in line with what Hitler had said in other speeches and in his works. It is indeed believable that he would be talking about textiles because Hitler had a reputation for focusing on all kind of tiny details(particularly in military matters), often at the expense of the big picture.

    • Some astute observations here. It’s important to remember that there’s no magical dividing line between armed good guys and armed bad guys; and the “good guys” are in fact responsible for a great many gun crimes. As for Alan.. well, he’s a Holocaust denier, and he submitted even more crap than I allowed to be posted here. It would be wise to take anything he says with a bucket of salt. There is absolutely nothing unrealistic about Hitler discussing textiles.

      • Patrick will never be reasoned with. Feel free to ignore him, you have my permission and it will drive him nuts(er).

      • Very reasonable comments from (of course) anonymous. And you wonder why we cannot have intelligent discourse designed to save kids’ lives. It’s not all the politicians fault…

      • Ah, so its only about “kids’ lives”? Alrighty then. First thing, we need to ban private vehicles. More children are killed by irresponsible drunk drivers than guns, let alone by all cars on the road (even when considering the fact that over half of all gun deaths are suicides). If we required everyone to take mass transit and removed all other vehicles, we would save more lives than any two safety measures of *any* type, combined. And you have a right to a gun, you don’t have a right to a car. Oh wait, that’s a ludicrous solution to saving lives!! Why? Because *you* like your car.

      • Daniel Mey, is some responsible person suggesting that *all* firearms should be confiscated? Your comment reads as a response to such an argument. Car and drivers are currently regulated with licensing and and enforcement. Doesn’t the second amendment, the part before the comma, mention a “well-regulated” militia?

      • Daniel,

        Is one of the definitive purposes of a car to kill human beings, and not just by random accidents? Guns are a little different because a major part of their use involves self-defense of assault.and they were largely invented for that purpose–not just to knock a beer can off of a fence post!

        Come up with a better analogy!

      • How do you figure good guys are responsible for a great many gun crimes? Can you provide sources, facts and evidence on that load of garbage???

      • Note that he says there’s no magical dividing line. The point is that there are lots of people who think of themselves as good guys who end up becoming bad guys with their guns, or whose guns end up in the hands of bad guys. George Zimmerman almost certainly thought of himself as the good guy; in his mind he was packing heat to protect the community, not to rob liquor stores. Nancy Lanza was probably what most of us would think of as more a good guy than a bad guy, but arming her ended up arming her son. In both instances, a “good guy” was responsible for a tragic gun crime, in the first by actually shooting an unarmed boy, and in the second by arming a boy who should have remained unarmed.

        You can exclude them from your list of “good guys” if you want by saying that good guys by definition aren’t responsible for crimes. But then “good guys” become impossible to identify until after they have lived out their exemplary crime-free lives. Which is kind of the point.

      • Okay, well I guess in that respect I would agree with that. Maybe i wasn’t thinking clearly. Thank you.

      • Mr. Vazquez,

        I do not doubt that most of many gun crimes are committed by those who are already on the outs with the law. However, I do find it difficult to believe that little or no gun crimes have happened as a result of crimes of passion committed by otherwise stalwart citizens.

        In many press reports involving a neighbor, that is suddenly implicated in a violent crime (some no doubt involving the use of firearms) it is not uncommon for people in the neighborhood to describe the perpetrator as a nice guy who was always considerate to others etc.etc. So, apparently the label of (nice guy, or good guy) is often dependent on the moment someone may lose control and do something violent and uncharacteristic of his normal behavior, with a weapon.

        Please don’t require me to search the archives of the NYT in order to find such reports. We have all seen or heard about them in the local and national news, and I am sure you know the kind of incidents I am referring to.

      • “I do find it difficult to believe that little or no gun crimes have happened as a result of crimes of passion committed by otherwise stalwart citizens. ”
        As anyone who has spent any time in the law enforcement will tell you, people do all kinds of unusual things. One “see it all”. In other words, any type of crime you could possibly imagine, no matter how heinous, has probably been committed in the United States, by any kind of person you could imagine– from the hardened career criminal to the innocent housewife who has never received a speeding summons before in her life… prior to murdering all her children.
        The point isn’t that such things NEVER happen. Of course they do. The point is that they are HIGHLY UNUSUAL, to the point of being statistically insignificant.
        A word I could use is “outlier”, in statistics… I remember a college Biological Statistics class I had to take, in which I had to construct a graph of the weights of a randomly selected group of animals, where the average weight was, say, 100lbs. Out of 100 animals I had data on, the vast majority fit neatly on the curve. But, inevitably, I’d have data that included one or two animals that weighed, say, 200lbs, or 20lbs. They were highly unusual, to the point of being aberrations. And thus, I was taught to disregard them when constructing a “best-fit” graph curve. That is an analogy I can think of that would be appropriate here.

        Regarding using newspaper reports as evidence… there are reasons why they’re not admissible in court, or even as scientific evidence in academia. For one thing, they are often wrong factually, especially at the onset of the investigation. One can hardly blame them for being wrong– they aren’t privy to the facts of the investigation, unlike the actual investigators. This is why actual police reports and court transcripts are always preferable to newspaper articles.
        Another reason is much more insidious– and it is evident that it has had its effects on you. The problem with using newspaper reports as evidence, in any discussion, is that newspapers are published in order to make money. And how do they make money? By being as sensational as possible. In the years that I was a police officer, several of my fellow police officers were shot and killed, not by erstwhile law abiding citizens, but by hardened convicted felons who should not have had guns to begin with. Did these shootings receive national, or even a great deal of local, media attention? No. Hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent men, women and children were shot, many killed, many maimed, by convicted felons, who should not have been wielding guns to begin with in my city. Were ANY of these childrens’ deaths reported on the national, or even regional, media? No, because so many of them were poor, the children of people who had social/societal/economic/criminal difficulties as well, and their shooters were criminals to begin with, gang members, or members of a demographic that is not popular to write about in the media, if you take my meaning.
        On the other hand, as soon as an otherwise law-abiding, “sweet”, otherwise respected caucasian (I’m just being realistic here… I’m not caucasian myself, lest you get the wrong idea) housewife shoots her husband and kids, she makes not just the regional, but the national and international news.
        And, in that manner, you have the psychological phenomenon of generalization…. suddenly, in the minds of many, who have no experience with what is actually going on in the criminal world, the ONLY people committing gun crimes are otherwise law abiding husbands and housewives who one day snap and “go postal”.
        But in reality, this either has NEVER happened, or RARELY happens, in any given jurisdiction.

        The scene from Miracle on 34th Street comes to mind, where letters to Santa Clause were dumped on the judge’s desk. If letters represented deaths by firearms, you would receive a handful of letters, from people who had committed murder by firearm with absolutely no criminal record or involvement with law enforcement prior. But then you would be deluged and covered by sacks and sacks full of letters representing people who were killed by firearms wielded by known criminals, if not convicted felons– the sacks and sacks would keep on coming and dumped on your desk, for days on end.

        I think any other former or current police officers reading this will agree with me. I was a patrol officer as well as a detective for years (recently), in a large, well-known, busy city on the East Coast, and I can’t think of a single incident in which someone with NO CRIMINAL RECORD WHATSOEVER suddenly, at age 35 or 40 or 50 or what have you, decided to shoot someone else. Yes, there are plenty of domestic shootings (more commonly stabbings), for example– usually by jealous boyfriends or husbands. But I can’t think of a single instance that the police were NEVER called to their residence prior to the incident, the boyfriend/husband had NEVER had a protective order issued to him (otherwise known as restraining order), or was never arrested for prior abuse or any kind of prior crime, or was never mentioned in a police report prior. It just doesn’t happen with any kind of regularity.

        And the terrible mistake is to base legislation on if not a unicorn, an okapi.

      • Mr. Vazquez, Thanks for the response,

        For sure it makes sense that most assaults with guns are perpetrated by people who have previously been in conflicts with law enforcement officials or involved with guns in some criminal manner. But I don’t know if the number of “good guy” assaults is actually as tiny as you say. For one thing, your experience as a police officer has to do, presumably, with a certain area of one ‘American city–not the entire United States. But suppose that the relative number of crimes of passion really are miniscule compared to the number of shootings regarding known criminals or ex-cons. Would these have added up to ten people nation wide? 50, 200, 1000? How small does the number have to be in order to be considered worth preventing?

        It also seems apparent to me, that the large number of attacks, including those aimed at law enforcement by criminals, are just other reasons to focus on the need to make the acquisition of weapons as difficult as possible. The 1994 “assault” weapons ban certainly did not do that because background checks were not done nearly as thoroughly as they should have.But calling for universal background checks would not prevent the acquisition of firearms by responsible citizens. It would only call attention to purchasers who had prior criminal records or types of mental illnesses! sadly even though the number of gun crimes has come down in many areas, the frequent purchase of semi-automatic assault weapons, along with bullets, large capacity magazines, and even body armor remain amazingly simple for most of us to order online. That raises a big Why?!

        Of course criminals frequently don’t obey the law, and mentally ill people are often involved in mass shootings, there is no doubt that if the acquisition of deadly firepower were made much more difficult, we could not help but see a decrease in Mass shootings. And, sure, people will continue to assault others with any weapons they can, but a rock is no match for 60 rounds fired in one minute, and if your child throws rocks at other kids in the playground, the solution is NOT to give all the other kids rocks.

        If restrictions on the availability of guns are made, criminals (or potential criminals) would also not be able to acquire them so easily. We need to prohibit straw purchases, and even the sale of weapons to relatives, unless some sort of effective background checks preceded those purchases. It is also true that even our automobiles (large mobile objects capable of hurling down roads at 100+ mph.) are licensed, registered , re-registered have their license plates renewed annually, and cannot be driven by someone without an appropriate license of adequate insurance (in many states). Yet the government has never tried to take away anyone’s vehicle without good reasons i.e a number of drunk driving convictions. Like wise regulating our firearms will not result in confiscation of all of our weapons.

        Where gun regulations are involved, it is obvious that police prefer gun battles with criminals who do not possess rapid firing semi-automatics, high speed bullets, drum magazines and even an assailant wearing body armor. Even if the Newtown shooter’s mother had properly stored her weapons under lock and key, or was not able to purchase an AR-15 because it was really and genuinely removed from the market which has been selling them to the public, the Newtown tragedy would probably not happened or become much less likely to happen.

        Unfortunately the news outlets do sometimes ignore stories about gun violence because they are committed frequently by minority groups who might be living in bad neighborhoods. They may happen so often, that a newspaper (for example) might be labeled as redundant or single minded when running stories that are sort of generically similar to ones it has already run over and over. I am sure that sometimes they don’t get their facts right but usually someone can lodge a complaint with a new outlet,that, might spark a correction of information, or a complete retraction from the newspaper’s editors. After all, their accuracy and ethical treatment regarding controversial subjects are big parts of their very reputation as reliable outlets. This criteria is also lived up to by law enforcement officials. But I cannot believe that, in the heat of battle–sometimes involving multiple shooter as well as more than one police officer, an officer always accurately remembers and interprets his experience with virtually no mistakes at all! Subjecting accounts to an extensive system of law enforcement officials, unfortunately can also include greater opportunity for mistakes and lies at each level. We are all fallible just like the police also are!

        In any case, I think that actually restricting the physical presence of guns and our physically ability to acquire them, will also provide benefits that keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals. If WE cannot buy them, criminals will find it more difficult to acquire them. And before we talk about black market availability, consider that such a network has probably provided almost anything illegal to anyone who wants it. Does that mean that we should completely ignore the problem and merely hope that it goes away? Of course not! Every potential, or current criminal will probably still acquire weapons one way or another, but simple logic dictates that not as many of them wil be able to complete the transactions required, prior to purchasing them!

        If anything the fact that many more criminals, as compared with “good guy” gun owners, are involved in illegal uses of firearms is all the more reason to regulate them. Most members of the NRA and other gun enthusiasts undoubtedly do use weapons properly, but no one needs huge ammo magazines or rapidly firing weapons, just for being a responsible owner! Perhaps the government can make specific exception to those who truly prove their knowledge and respect for firearms in an effective—after they meet certain requirements! For Christs’s we do the same with truck drivers because to drive an 18 wheeler well, and with a healthy regard for safety, is not something everyone can do.

        Once again, this entire gun debate revolves around providing adequate protection from violence to the public—not slapping the wrists of gun owners out of disrespect or arrogance. It really has to do with saving lives—something we all are interested in!

      • “But I don’t know if the number of “good guy” assaults is actually as tiny as you say.”

        I have no idea what a “good guy assault” is. An assault is a crime committed by the person committing the crime. As far as the law, and the police are concerned, neither the suspect nor the victim is the “good” or “bad” guy. They are simply the suspect and the victim.

        “Would these have added up to ten people nation wide? 50, 200, 1000? How small does the number have to be in order to be considered worth preventing?”

        A)Clearly, every crime is worth preventing. Even crimes that only take place once a year, or once a century. But some crimes are impossible to prevent. Or at the very least, impossible to prevent without violating the Constitution. We have to remember that the purpose of our Constitution is not to prevent crime. It is to protect our individual rights. For example, clearly, every drug dealer becomes a drug dealer for a first time. Every prostitute becomes a prostitute for a first time. Every drunk driver becomes a drunk driver for the first time. In other words, all of the above criminals committed their crimes without a previous involvement with police. But, clearly, this continues to happen. These crimes continue to happen, in society. No matter what we do, these crimes continue to be committed. I am certain that even in the most repressive societies, such as Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany, there continued to be drunk drivers, murderers, child killers, prostitutes. Even when some of these crimes resulted in the most terrible of executions or imprisonments. If your goal is to eliminate crimes that are already miniscule in their occurrence, such as mass shootings by, let’s be honest about it, white males with no previous criminal record, you will fail, even if you had all of the resources of the KGB and Gestapo at your beck and call. Which makes it even more meaningless to attempt it in our free society.

        B)The fact that you are attempting to “prevent” a crime that hardly ever happens, but are choosing to NOT attempt to prevent terrible crimes that take place on a daily basis — such as stabbings, shootings, rapes, child molestations, etc, by known criminals, tells me that you are less interested in preventing crime and helping the majority of victims of crime, and more interested in pushing a personal agenda.

        C)The very fact that a crime is committed by someone who is completely unknown to police makes that crime very unlikely to be prevented. Without there being a police state. And that is not something I am interested in defending.

        “It also seems apparent to me, that the large number of attacks, including those aimed at law enforcement by criminals, are just other reasons to focus on the need to make the acquisition of weapons as difficult as possible. The 1994 “assault” weapons ban certainly did not do that because background checks were not done nearly as thoroughly as they should have.”

        I am really getting tired of explaining this, and I will not explain it again. You are apparently under the impression that criminals, who commit the vast majority of shootings (and incidentally, you must realize that the vast majority of shootings do NOT result in death) waltz down to their local gun store, purchase an AR-15 (or attempt to purchase it by lying their way through the purchase), and then use that gun in crimes. THAT’S NOT HOW IT HAPPENS, in the vast majority of cases. In the vast majority of cases–
        A)The shootings are committed with PISTOLS, often revolvers, with small magazines (not 30 round magazines, not AR-15s). In fact in the years I was a patrol officer and detective, I did not know of a single shooting committed with an AR-15. And I worked in a large, crime-ridden, busy city on the east coast.

        B)Often, the shootings are committed with CHEAP, badly-constructed pistols (I lost count of the number of HiPoint pistols used in shootings– they are very inaccurate, very slow to fire, made of very inferior metal so they tend to rust quickly). NOT EXPENSIVE AR-15s. In fact, ALL of my fellow police officers killed by firearms during my tenure WERE KILLED BY SMALL, CHEAP, low-capacity pistols. Not AR-15s.

        C)The firearms used in these crimes ARE ALMOST ALWAYS STOLEN. Not purchased by “straw buyers”. Not bought legitimately and kept lovingly in a safe. But STOLEN, often many, many years earlier. For example, one of the times that I was faced by a suspect wielding a semi-automatic rifle, it was a very cheap ($100), poorly constructed Chinese-made SKS rifle which only has a permanent 10-round magazine, which turned out to have been STOLEN back in 1994. Another example was a rash of gun store burglaries in the mid-2000s on the East Coast by a professional burglary gang that resulted in thousands of STOLEN firearms ending up on the street being used in crimes, including in my city. I lost track of those guns turning up on the persons of convicted felons who I arrested. Of course, purchases by “straw buyers” take place regularly. But obviously, background checks have no effect, because the person buying the firearms would have no record. This is one of those crimes I mentioned above which is impossible to prevent, unless and until that person continues to do so and becomes known to the police, and is caught.
        I would recommend that you contact your local law enforcement and request to participate in a “ride along”, in the worst of the worst projects of your city, if there is one. You will quickly realize that the only firearms these people can get a hold of are firearms acquired in illegal ways. For that matter, even possessing a firearm in a project is illegal, because they have strict housing rules… but that’s another subject. The point is, THEY ARE COMMITTING THE MAJORITY OF GUN CRIMES. If you care about gun crimes, confront them, confront the conditions that create them. That involves things like welfare, having numerous children out of wedlock, while on welfare, these children attending one of the worst school systems in the world, racial issues, etc etc etc.

        “the frequent purchase of semi-automatic assault weapons, along with bullets, large capacity magazines, and even body armor remain amazingly simple for most of us to order online. That raises a big Why?!”

        A better question would be why not? I own many semi-automatic rifles (there is no such thing as an “assault rifle”), many large capacity magazines, and body armor. Why shouldn’t I own them? I even have a concealed carry permit. I’m not a convicted felon, I have not been found incompetent by any court.
        However, it is INCORRECT to say that you can “order a semi-automatic rifle online”, and have it delivered to your door, like a book from Amazon or something. Are you aware that you cannot order a firearm that is not an antique online, or through the mail?

        “there is no doubt that if the acquisition of deadly firepower were made much more difficult, we could not help but see a decrease in Mass shootings.”
        Absolutely. If we were to make it a death penalty offense, for example, to own a firearm, we would absolutely see a reduction in the number of people owning firearms. Just as, if we were to increase the penalty for 1st-time use of marijuana to life imprisonment in a labor camp, we would see a dramatic reduction in marijuana use. But again, the purpose of the Constitution isn’t to prevent crime. It’s to defend and establish individual freedom. Just because legislation would result in reduction of crime does NOT mean that that legislation is something we would want to enact.

        “if your child throws rocks at other kids in the playground, the solution is NOT to give all the other kids rocks. ”

        Relevance? We’re not talking about children. We’re talking about adults over the age of 18 exercising their 2nd amendment rights.

        “We need to prohibit.. the sale of weapons to relatives, unless some sort of effective background checks preceded those purchases.”

        This is another example of your not thinking something you write through before clicking “send”.

        A)This would be completely unenforceable. There would be no way for the government to know to which relative a firearm is being sold or given, or whether it’s being sold or given at all. For one thing, “registration” of firearms is unconstitutional in most states (including my own), so the Federal Government doesn’t even know what weapons anyone owns (the FBI is required to destroy its records regarding background checks soon after they are completed). So how could they possibly know that I’ve given or sold my firearms to my children, or anyone else? Totally unenforceable and therefore silly.

        Many people think that a “solution” to that would be to introduce universal registration of firearms upon purchase. Setting aside the fact that that would be monstrously illegal, unconstitutional and immoral, it would never work in practice. In that case, if it were me, I would buy my weapons, comply with the compulsory registration, and then shortly afterward report my weapons stolen or destroyed. All this does is place the serial #s of the weapons on a national database so that the police would be able to return the weapon to its rightful owner if it’s ever recovered. (Having recovered thousands of stolen weapons, I know that actual prosecution of a suspect for “possession of a stolen firearm” is exceedingly difficult, because often the firearm was stolen years earlier from a victim 1,500 miles away in another state, and that stolen firearm passed through 100 hands before finding itself in the current suspect’s pocket. And not only is that victim not going to travel 1,500 miles to testify in some local court, but it is nearly impossible to prove that the suspect in possession of the weapon actually stole the weapon or even knew it was stolen, since the original theft took place 10 or 15 years earlier, when the suspect was 5 years old.. but I digress).
        And the authorities would have to take the word of the gun owners that their weapons were gone/destroyed/stolen/dropped into the sea– what are they going to do, search the millions of houses, apartments, boats, storage lockers, 45 acre farms, 10 square mile woods, of every single gun owner, searching for guns? Not going to happen. These weapons will simply suddenly cease to exist or have owners. So what you will have done is not ended, not even reduced, the number of illegal weapons on the street. You will have magnified it, exponentially.

        B)One of the surest ways of ensuring that I sell (or give) my firearms to my sons is by attempting to tell me that I can’t. In fact, I can guarantee that if legislation were passed that “prevented” me from giving my property to my own (adult) children, that would be the first thing I’d do. And I don’t think I’d be alone in that, and I think Jefferson, Madison, and Washington would applaud from the grave.
        This would be similar to passing legislation that I could no longer possess or drink alcohol, or give it away or sell it. I think within a week I’d be doing all of the above.

        “It is also true that even our automobiles (large mobile objects capable of hurling down roads at 100+ mph.) are licensed, registered , re-registered have their license plates renewed annually, and cannot be driven by someone without an appropriate license of adequate insurance (in many states).”

        This is truly an argument made by someone who doesn’t have the slightest understanding of the law, or of the difference between a basic human right and a privilege.
        Owning a firearm is a BASIC RIGHT, ensured, FEDERALLY, by the US Constitution. On the other hand, driving a vehicle (or a horse and buggy) on a public road is NOT found in the Constitution, and is NOT a right. You do not have the inherent right to drive an automobile on a public road. It is a privilege, allowed and regulated by the STATES and MUNICIPALITIES. Furthermore, owning a car and keeping it in your garage or driving it across your 100 acre farm is very different from actually placing it on a public road and driving it– the former does NOT require a drivers license, registration or insurance (in fact the local police cannot stop you from driving your car drunk on vodka on your own property, or the private property of others), while the latter DOES. Do you understand the difference? Actually, if we were to use your (flawed) vehicular example, and compare guns to the laws governing vehicles, you ought not to be required to have ANY paperwork, registration, insurance, or special permissions to own your gun, especially if you kept it at home. Because, you are not required to register, insure, or be licensed to drive your vehicle, if you only operate it on your own property. Geez, this is civics 101. Anyway, comparing a right to a privilege doesn’t work– apples and oranges.

        “it is obvious that police prefer gun battles with criminals who…”

        In all seriousness, never say such a thing to a police officer, past or present. Police officers do not “prefer gun battles”, of any kind. Police officers do everything they can to AVOID a “gun battle”, because “gun battles” often result in injury, death, or property damage, or all of the above, not to mention taking the officer off the street, a gigantic investigation, possible loss of one’s job (even if the “gun battle” went well), possible lawsuits, and being pilloried in the press. That’s just not something you want to say. It’s similar to saying “I’m sure most rape victims prefer that their rapists be well-manicured and wear condoms…”

        “who do not possess rapid firing semi-automatics”
        What in the world is a “rapid firing semi-automatic”? Nowadays the majority of firearms being manufactured are semi-automatics, and “rapid firing”. I’m not sure what a “slow firing semi automatic” would be? Perhaps one with gunky and rusty innards? This is where total ignorance of the subject matter comes in. Some of the most powerful weapons in the world are not “rapid firing”. Many very powerful sniper rifles, and hunting rifles, for example, are bolt action. These rifles will send a round through 2 or 3 officers, even wearing body armor. Some of the most powerful pistols in the world are not “rapid firing”– the .44 or .357 magnum revolvers, for example. The rapidity of the firing is not relevant in these cases. For that matter, some of the most powerful semi-automatic pistols in the world are not “rapid firing”– the .45 Colt 1911, for example, fires a massive round, but is nowhere near as quick to fire as police-issued 9mm Glock 17’s, but the .45 rounds are much more effective and dangerous.
        This reminds me of a training video we watched as part of our training. One of the most painful parts of training was having to watching the complete dash-cam videos of well-known officer shooting deaths. One of the worst is the death of Trooper Coates, who died at the hands of a, you guessed it, career criminal wielding a tiny .22 caliber derringer-type weapon. The video is available for all to see on Youtube– you can hear every agonizing scream of the Trooper as he succumbs next to his vehicle after being shot by a single tiny .22 caliber round that entered his arm and traveled to his heart. It is terrible but I would recommend that you watch it. Another extremely heartbreaking dashcam video is the 1998 video of Deputy Kyle Dinkheller being shot and killed, AFTER he fired at the suspect multiple times with his own “rapid firing weapon”, by a suspect wielding an antique, relatively slow-firing WWII M1 carbine. This video is available on Youtube and Liveleak as well. It is one of the worst examples that not just firing first, but firing “rapidly” and many times, does NOT guarantee victory or survival.

        “high speed bullets” Again, what on earth is a “high speed bullet”? Sorry, but now we’re descending into the “gee whiz” category of “gizmos” and “doohickeys”.

        “Where gun regulations are involved, it is obvious that police prefer gun battles with criminals who do not possess rapid firing semi-automatics, high speed bullets, drum magazines and even an assailant wearing body armor.”

        Again, it is absolutely irrelevant, in a matter of Constitutionality, or even morality, what police “prefer”. Police prefer a lot of things. When I was a police officer, I would have preferred not to have had to read a suspect their Miranda Rights prior to questioning them– I could have gotten many more confessions. I would have preferred to have been able to search their houses without warrants– I would have found a lot more illegal firearms and narcotics, and saved many more lives. I would have preferred to arrest a suspect I knew in my heart was dealing drugs, and search them, without having actually observed them dealing drugs. Many would have preferred to be able to run the license plates of women they found attractive, in order to be able to date them. On and on. The point is, often what police would “prefer”, what would make a policeman’s job easier, is not Constitutional or moral. In fact, it is often the case that THAT POLICY WHICH MAKES A POLICEMAN’S JOB EASIER, IS MOST LIKELY NOT CONSTITUTIONAL. A really good example of that is a recent ruling that police can no longer affix GPS or other forms of electrical tracking devices to suspects’ vehicles, in order to track their movements. Back when it was permissible, it used to be one of my favorite ways to track where suspects were getting or transporting their narcotics. I “preferred” it, it made my job much easier.
        In short, we must always err AGAINST the police, when making policy. This is the way it is in courtrooms– if an error in a judgement is possible, if there is any reasonable doubt, the judge must err in favor of the defendant, and against the police. That’s a cornerstone of our system.

        But if we take your argument that that which police “prefer” must be taken as correct policy, then you have defeated yourself as well. I, and most former and current police officers, own our own weapons, often semi automatic rifles, because we tend to like firearms. Furthermore, every police officer I know, past or present, is obviously AGAINST banning semi automatic rifles– if we were for banning them, we wouldn’t own them ourselves. So wouldn’t you have to take our “preferences” to the bank…?

        “Unfortunately the news outlets do sometimes ignore stories about gun violence because they are committed frequently by minority groups who might be living in bad neighborhoods.”

        SOMETIMES??? How about most of the time.

        “They may happen so often, that a newspaper (for example) might be labeled as redundant or single minded ..” You mean like the Washington Post, or the New York Times….? If there are more redundant or single-minded newspapers in the world (other than the Taliban TImes), I don’t know any. But yet, they continue to be read, digested, and taken as gospel by most people of a certain political bent.

        “After all, their accuracy and ethical treatment regarding controversial subjects are big parts of their very reputation as reliable outlets.”

        I don’t know many newspapers, or television networks, that are considered “reliable outlets” by a majority of viewers. Most people nowadays tune in to networks in order to bolster and cement their own biases. I was going to add that they read newspapers to do the same thing, but the truth is, hardly anyone under 40 reads newspapers anymore– it is going extinct. The same does not apply to news sources online, which have quickly become the most up-to-date and reliable sources for information, or at least more reliable than the newspapers and networks that exist with editorial agendas they want to push. It’s gotten to the point that, at least regarding the newspaper that covers my area, the comments from readers following the article online are almost more informative than the article itself. Anyway, if I want information about any specific crime, I go straight to the original sources— either by looking up the court and arrest records themselves, which are public information, or looking at the court documents or police reports themselves which are often available online. There is no longer any point to reading an article about a crime, written by someone who’s never been a police officer, who’s never worked a crime scene, and who was never even at the crime scene itself (as reporters are not allowed within a block of them). I’d rather look at the primary sources of information and make my own judgements, especially since as I’ve said many times, the newspapers usually get the facts wrong. And no, they don’t do retractions on every little detail they get wrong. They’d be doing retractions 24/7.

        “But I cannot believe that, in the heat of battle–sometimes involving multiple shooter as well as more than one police officer, an officer always accurately remembers and interprets his experience with virtually no mistakes at all! ”

        The point is, in the majority of crimes, the police officer’s account, that is, his report, is the only source of information about the crime. The report includes what every witness said, the evidence that was found (in most cases), the times that the events took place, where they took place, etc. It is a SUMMARY of signed witness statements, suspect confessions, etc. The police report is called an IBR– an “Incident Based Report”, which is required to be sent to the FBI, so they can tabulate all of the reports and come up with the statistics that many people, including those against the 2nd amendment, like yourself, are so fond of quoting. In other words, FBI statistics ARE the police reports. So if police reports are not correct, then neither can FBI statistics be correct. The FBI (and newspapers) have no magical omnipotent eyes in the sky that glean information from thousands and thousands of crimes that take place every night around the country. The FBI, and to a lesser extent the newspapers, are dependent on police reports to write their stories or do their jobs.

        “In any case, I think that actually restricting the physical presence of guns and our physically ability to acquire them, will also provide benefits that keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals. If WE cannot buy them, criminals will find it more difficult to acquire them.”

        Agreed. And restricting abortions completely would make it so that no botched abortions could ever be performed, no unethical doctors could perform abortions, etc. If the government shut down the internet completely, and made it more difficult for you and I to send email to each other, it would certainly make it much more difficult for Al Qaeda to send emails describing terrorist acts to each other. If we suddenly made it illegal to own a vehicle, it would clear up the traffic situation on the freeways overnight, and reduce the rate of traffic deaths by 1000%. If we were to outlaw alcohol, and its consumption and sale, we would reduce DUI’s and medical costs associated with alcoholism exponentially. If we restricted air travel only to those with 100% clean criminal records, it would certainly reduce drug trafficking, the risk of terrorism, etc. I do hope I’m making my point.

        “Does that mean that we should completely ignore the problem and merely hope that it goes away?”

        What problem? What are you referring to?

        “Every potential, or current criminal will probably still acquire weapons one way or another, but simple logic dictates that not as many of them wil be able to complete the transactions required, prior to purchasing them!”

        I don’t understand. What exactly are you proposing that would make it “more difficult” for criminals to acquire weapons, that doesn’t already exist? You seem to be arguing two different things– you want it to be more difficult for CRIMINALS to get weapons… and you want it to be more difficult for law-abiding citizens to get weapons. Is it both? Or one of the above? What more legislation do you want to put into place to make it more difficult for criminals to get guns, that ISN’T already in place?

        “If WE cannot buy them..” Ok, but prohibiting us from buying them violates the Constitution. Are you arguing that the Constitution should be violated in order to make us “safer”? Didn’t Benjamin Franklin have something to say about security and liberty….?

        “Most members of the NRA and other gun enthusiasts undoubtedly do use weapons properly, but no one needs huge ammo magazines or rapidly firing weapons, just for being a responsible owner!”

        Need is irrelevant. Certainly, no one NEEDS to own and publish a newspaper, in order to be a responsible custodian of their 1st amendment rights… so why not ban newspapers? No one needs a blog to exercise their rights… so why not ban blogging? No one of any particular race NEEDS to go into a cafe, or sit in a certain part of a bus, in order to live and breathe… so why not ban them in such places? Certainly no one NEEDS to invoke their right to a lawyer– they could be perfectly happy simply talking to the police… so why not disallow any access to lawyers by prisoners? I hope I’m making my point.
        The Bill of Rights isn’t about “need”. You don’t have demonstrate your “need” for something in order to do it. You don’t have to demonstrate your “need” to speak in order to speak. Sorry, but that argument is too easily refuted.

        And besides, who are you to say I personally don’t need X Y or Z? Don’t you think that I, as someone who has served in the military and in law enforcement, has a better idea of what I “need”, than you do? What qualifies you to know better what I “need” in my life than me?

        “For Christs’s we do the same with truck drivers because to drive an 18 wheeler well, and with a healthy regard for safety, is not something everyone can do.”

        That is correct. Not everyone can pilot an F-35 jet fighter. Not everyone can pilot the International Space Station, or take charge of a submarine with multiple nuclear ballistic missiles on it. What on earth does any of this have to do with owning firearms? And once again, driving trucks is not a fundamental right. Owning firearms is.

        “Once again, this entire gun debate revolves around providing adequate protection from violence to the public—not slapping the wrists of gun owners out of disrespect or arrogance. It really has to do with saving lives—something we all are interested in!”

        A)It may “revolve around” it, for you. But that isn’t necessarily what it “revolves around” for me, or for countless other people. Come to think about it, for me, it revolves more around maintaining the 2nd amendment, and maintaining policy that the police do not “prefer”, to put it your way. It involves more maintaining a healthy fear or respect by the government (the “police”), for the people, who are armed about as well as the police. This is much more important than “providing adequate protection” from a problem that doesn’t exist. The need for “adequate protection” against a government that wants to overstep its bounds is much, much more important than attempting to pass legislation to restrict our rights.

        B)If you truly wanted to “save lives”, then you would be putting your efforts into preventing deaths by stabbing– many, many more people die every year stabbed to death, than shot. Why are you not concerned about that? Have you volunteered as an EMT, to help injured people at crime scenes– the vast majority of whom are injured by ways OTHER than shooting?
        Many, many more children are sexually abused every year than are shot. Vastly, vastly more. Yet, you have not spoken a word about it. Have you volunteered in any way to help with that problem?
        I could go on and on. More evidence that for you, this is less about “saving lives”, and more about pushing your personal agenda.

      • I’m not going to respond to everything you said here at this time, Mr. Vasquez, since I’d be here all day and this comment really wasn’t directed to me. Besides, I’ve already addressed some of these concepts in other posts and will address others in the future. But the one thing I felt I should clarify here concerns your assertion that many more people die by stabbing than by gunshot. According to FBI statistics for 2011 (the last year for which figures are available) there were 8,583 deaths by firearm and 1,694 by sharp instruments.

      • actually here is another comment for Mr. Vasquez from me, Peter W. Johnson

        Mr. Vazquez,

        You said many outrageous things in your recent post, so I decided to write another response to it.

        I don’t know where you get the idea that, because I would like to prevent the use of guns to commit violent crimes, including mass shootings, that I am somehow not concerned about crimes like rape, stabbings or child molestation—are there really many people that aren’t? Of course I support police efforts to prevent all violent crimes, but I don’t understand why that means I must have the “right’ to own every weapon that they, or the military uses! I also do not expect criminals to “waltz” down to the store to purchase firearms; although I don’t live in unicorn land, the entire point of my arguments is that it should be harder than it often is for any potential killer to obtain dangerous weapons. Where have you been while I have been defending these beliefs?

        Why should it not be easy to for someone law abiding like you to purchase weapons online, since you are a responsible member of society? Because if you or I can get them easily, so might those who intend to kill innocent people! And by saying that semi-automatic guns should not be easily purchased by anyone, I only mean that all of us should successfully pass rigorous background checks and comply with all of the laws involved in owning them.

        Its true that James Holms had difficulty purchasing an assault weapon, a shotgun, several pistols, thousands of rounds of ammunition, and even body armor, simply because he had no criminal background to disqualify him in Colorado. But if more stringent background had been in effect he may not have passed them—perhaps he would not have committed his horrible crime.

        Please do me a favor and quit complaining whenever someone uses the erroneous term “assault weapons” to describe semi-automatics like AR15 when referring to mass shooters. Yes, semi-automatics can fire only 50 to 60 rounds per minute, but nearly once a second seems quite rapid to me! They do not rival fully automatic weapons like machine guns, but I still would have hated to be in the Aurora Theater the night a shooter fired randomly into a panicked crowd at least 50 times per minute, and, actually possessed a 100 round barrel magazine which enabled him to shoot 100 rounds before having to reload. The fact that a “slow semi-automatic” doesn’t exist, is exactly the point—exactly! I think it is tragic that when Holmes was stockpiling ammunition and acquiring large capacity magazines by purchasing them over the Internet, no one saw a red flag. For that reason I am not denying the importance of treating mental illness, but I am also in favor of restricting the physical access to weapon commonly preferred by killers because of the efficient way they can kill or wound a maximum number of targets in one minute.

        David Baum, a journalist, wrote an article on (3-11-13) titled, “How the left “blew it on Gun control,” said, “Every gun guy in America was as horrified as Nancy Pelosi was. Who wouldn’t be, when referring to Sandy Hook? He also states that, “What worries them is being told you are not trusted with these things.” But, the point I am trying to make in this online forum is that no one is saying that responsible gun owners are to blame for violence like that in Sandy Hook either, and, no one is saying that they can’t be trusted with weapons. Sometimes I and others, no doubt display a knee-jerk typical liberal reaction when our left-leaning opinions are involved, and, it is understandable that gun rights supporters might be polarized by it. But the goal of my gun control measures would be in keeping semi-automatic weapons out of the hands of the criminals and mentally ill people who often use them. Sometimes necessitates more thorough back ground checks and limits on magazine capacity as well as wondering if semi-automatics are really so cool so as to be made easily available to so many people! Personally I am not concerned that any NRA members will rush up my front porch and shoot me with a gun, and it seems ridiculous to think that some people feel that way about a Democratic government. Let me mention to you some of the comments that polarize me.

        Most gun advocates recognize that treatments for mental illness are critical in stopping gun violence or any other kind of violence—for that matter. But they refuse to admit that anyone might be more likely to use a gun to commit a crime, if it is readily available to him. Guns kill people, but those people cannot kill if they don’t have a gun in the first place. Our difference in philosophy is that, regulation does NOT automatically mean more restrictions and the eventual confiscation of our weapons, rather, to me, it can be a reasonable limitation on something which should not be seen as limitless i.e. The Second Amendment.

        I also agree that most of our constitution is written to guarantee the freedoms of individuals—but not all of it! The 16th amendment describes how taxes should be levied and paid. And, unless you think paying taxes really helps all of us, it is difficult to see taxation as a way to protect our people. The 22nd Amendment limits the term of President to two four year terms. Whether or not this really constitutes protection depends on the person asked. And, the 27th Amendment is the last and, I think the one which most clearly is NOT designed, to protect average citizens. It places members of Congress in charge of raising their own salaries.

        I understand that weapons commonly used in mass shootings may not be the most powerful available, but, a snipers rifle is not suited to a John Holmes kind of shooting in the first place. A lightweight semi-automatic weapon that can use a 100 round magazine is much more appropriate for shooting into a crowed theater, at a rate of up to 60 rounds per minute, killing and injuring the most people in a short time. And, Holmes may have been crazy but he was not stupid, and I would bet he carefully considered such factors. I have also read that many semi-automatic pistols are capable of firing rounds that move at 3000ft per second and can do much more damage than larger rounds that move more slowly.

        As far as I can see the 2nd Amendment allows for the right to own “arms.” But, how does the fact that some may be regulated, NOT ensure some elimination of dangers to the public? How does registration infringe anyone’s rights? And why does the word ARMS, automatically allow us to own ANY weapon we want?

        I am mystified by your mention of the fact that cars driven on private property may be driven on that property without fear of arrest—even though the driver may be drunk. How does this relate to a federal law which strengthens regulations for dangerous weapons? Is the shooting range you visit, always set up in your back yard? If you carry a concealed weapon, do you never go beyond your own property, or perhaps if someone breaks in, do you never defend against an intruder who might endanger your safety, or that of others? Or does it not matter if you deliberately murder your spouse while being at home?

        In your post you include a list of convoluted and meaningless arguments like; stating that if abortions are completely outlawed that will eliminate botched and dangerous abortions, or that, if the government completely shut down the Internet it would make it much more difficult for the Taliban to send secret messages, and, if we made owning cars illegal, would reduce traffic deaths by “1000 %.” But none of these things are direct ways to improve or save human lives—without also suffering from their loss. You may think it is catastrophic if you were limited to only 10 round magazines on the rifle range, and you may think that banning automobiles is equivalent to ending all traffic accidents, but it will also cause many people to die en-route to the emergency room, or by allowing quick evacuation from a dangerous area. Likewise the Internet plays many essential roles in turning the wheel of our economy and the worlds, as well as providing relatively instant contact with others. Abortions may also save the life of the mother when an infant endangers her life during delivery, or must be done for other medical reasons. But how does being denied an AR15 while still having many other guns, disrupt the completely necessary functions of your life? You have consistently downplayed its power as a weapon, and if not used for self defense—which other weapons and smaller magazines also provide—you seem to have little use for it except to enhance your target shooting or increase your sporting skills! And has it occurred to you that all of these mundane and recreational uses are NOT guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment? To me it seems little inconvenience to be forced to change magazines three times rather than once while target shooting. It seems a trivial point to balance your inconvenience against saving human lives. And, although I may be frustrated that you can’t see my point, I do not think you are a criminal and I do not want to see you punished for crimes you did not commit! Saving lives is practical and using reasonable gun regulations to do so is also practical. If anything gun advocates who can’t see that, frustrate me!

        In closing, Dan Baum said in Mother Jones, “It turns out everyone needs and AR15; it’s the only gun anyone wants. Have you ever fired one? If I put one of those in your hands and you shot at a target you would be awestruck by how well you shot. It’s like a guitar that makes everyone play like Jerry Garcia. It was not a particularly popular gun until the “assault rifle ban of 1994.”

        It sounds like an awesome piece of engineering and must be fun to shoot, but since when does pride and joy of ownership trump the ability to save lives? I am not even saying that no one should have them—only that greater care should be taken to prevent killers like John Holmes and Adam Lanza, from getting them and then, killing innocent people. I am also not taking ammunition away—only limiting it to ten rounds at a time. If you use them primarily for target shooting, shouldn’t you be a little inconvenienced rather than those who are defenseless against attacker—who might prefer very large magazines? You may be responsible and fair, but every person who shoots semi-automatic “assault” weapons is (unfortunately) not! Disagree all you may want but don’t criticize me for merely considering what make sense to me!

      • Mr. Vazquez:

        Two points:

        #1

        The purpose of the Constitution was not “to defend and establish individual freedom” or “protect our individual rights”.

        Our rights and freedoms are unalienable; they are part of human nature itself. They are not created or granted by kings or constitutions; they are part of our birthright. As the Declaration of Independence established, we had those rights before the Constitution was even written or ratified.

        Rather, the Constitution was “ordained and established” to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”.

        In a more practical sense, it was written to create a better system of government than the flawed and failed Articles of Confederation.

        As well, the Bill of Rights was added to answer anti-Federalist charges that the new government would use its power to forcefully impose its will on the States against their will. The purpose of the first ten amendments was to clarify which powers had not been granted to the new government; to clarify what the government could not do. They did not create or establish rights or freedoms, because they already existed, and they did not protect these rights and freedoms, because they were already protected by the fact that the body of the Constitution did not grant the government the power to violate them.

        #2

        Firearm ownership is not a fundamental right. Neither the Framers of the Constitution, James Madison, nor the First Congress meant the 2nd Amendment to guarantee an individual right, regardless of what the Supreme Court now says (and this is the first time in its entire history it has made that claim).

        For more information, see the following historical articles:

        http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FinkelmanChicago.htm

        http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SchwoererChicago.htm

        http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/BellesilesChicago.htm

        http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/RakoveChicago.htm

        http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/UvillerAndMerkelChicago.htm

        http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/HeymanChicago.htm

        http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/DorfChicago.htm

        http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SpitzerChicago.htm

      • Mr. Vazquez,

        By “good guy” assaults, I was referring to those committing gun crimes, without previous criminal records. I also associate the term with the people usually defended by the NRA and gun enthusiasts in general, who are typified as upstanding and law abiding citizens, who we should have no concerns about concerning their responsible use of guns. My point was only in response to your repeated insistence that, almost all of the crimes committed with guns that you have encountered as a police officer, have been committed by those with previous criminal records or bad behavior of some kind, such as domestic quarrels for example. And, indeed, it is hard to imagine that your implications about solid citizens, who stand outside of being categorized as those having criminal records, are almost never involved in gun attacks, as you claim.

        I didn’t expect you to write such a long post in response to mine and I don’t think I can respond to everything in it, but, I will list a few points of mine which you do not seem to get.

        You frequently use supposedly logical examples which are not really relevant to the topic at hand i.e. the fact that other crimes like stabbings, rapes, child abuse etc. exist, has nothing to do with diminishing the need for preventing viscous gun crimes. It is also irrelevant if sometimes semi-automatics with large ammo magazines do not successfully defend against guns that hold less rounds or fire slower ammo. Do you mean, by bringing up these examples, that no one, including cops who are sometimes victimized during road side stops, should be very concerned if an assailant only has a Semi-automatic handgun or one that shoots rounds at high speeds? The adage that comes to mind is that, “whether the rock hits the pitcher or the pitcher hits the rock, the results are going to be bad for the pitcher!”—a gun which holds less ammo and fires at slower speeds is definitely potentially dangerous—just as one which fires high speed ammo and is semi-automatic, also is! However, shooters like Adam Lanza apparently would much rather have semi-automatic weapons to efficiently commit their crimes of mass murder!

        It is also not accurate to claim that I am trying to prevent crimes that, “hardly ever happen.” To be sure, mass shootings quantitatively, are much less common when compared with the number of many other gun crimes, but they are, IN NO WAY, NOT happening, and, they often involve dozens of people who are either killed or injured. Ask Congressman Gifford if they “hardly ever happen” and ask the secret service men that protected Reagan and Press secretary Brady if such attacks “hardly ever happen.” In fact why not question the members of the secret service themselves about whether they are just wasting their efforts when trying to prevent attacks on the President that, “hardly ever happen.”

        Mother Jones has documented 62 mass shootings—defined by the FBI as killing 4 or more people in a single incident—and there are many other’s involving a number less than 4. Attempts by armed civilians are very rare and hardly ever successful—in two schools shooting taking place in Mississippi and Pennsylvania, in 1990, armed bystanders did subdued teen perpetrators, but only after shooting had subsided. More often than not, interventions by armed civilians only result in more deaths. So, the point I am trying to make is that even if mass shootings happen less than the numerous other crimes involving guns, this does not mean that they are not a problem, and their lower frequency does NOT diminish the importance of the absolutely devastating results they produce!

        You also spend a great deal of time harping on my figure of speech involving the word “prefer.” Please don’t be so ridiculous! No one is saying that police are somehow in favor of ANY KIND of assault committed on them, AND YOU KNOW WHAT I MEANT, but, it is fairly obvious that with more fire power—including criminals armed with large capacity magazines—that these assaults are more dangerous to go up against than someone whose bullet chamber can only fire six rounds without reloading—or an attack from a gun that has no rapidly changeable magazine. And, are you denying that even bullets of small caliber, are sometimes more deadly simply because some can fire rounds at higher speeds—resulting in more damage?

        One thing I am tired of having to explain to YOU is that my interest in additional regulations pertaining to higher capacity magazines and rapid firing weapons has nothing to do with wanting only to advance a personal agenda. Believe it or not, there are many of us who are concerned with providing safe environments in our schools and public places by making it difficult for mass shooters, when equipped with semi-automatic weapons, high capacity magazines, body armor, and thousands of rounds of ammunition, to kill innocent children and others. Are you prepared to accuse the parents of Newtown’s murdered children with only wanting to “advance a political agenda?” Is it so wrong to think that there has got to be some better ways to save lives?

        I’d also like to get it through your head that, I am NOT AGAINST the 2nd Amendment! How many times must I repeat this? I am in favor of regulating some weapons and ammunition, as well as the ability for mass shooters to acquire them—NOT in preventing the ownership of all guns and ammunition! The reason I feel this way is that, ALL of our amendments aren’t meant to be taken as if they are written in stone, or, impervious to any changes that might become needed in light of circumstances and/or time!

        AGAIN let me illustrate the basis for this opinion of mine by asking you to define the word “ARMS” as it is used in the first Amendment. This word literally applies to any kind of weapon. Its literal definition as ANY KIND OF WEAPON, when taken literally, would open up the doors to the possession of bazookas, flamethrowers, ICBMs and our personal stockpiles of Nuclear weapons—so if you ask me, I think we definitely need to define and limit the different kinds of weapons that this amendment refers to! What makes you think that, ANY kind of less inclusive definition is unconstitutional or unlawful? Even the right to vote, does not include the right to vote for more than one person for the same office or, more than once, in the same election! We also must REGISTER to vote, even though VOTING IS ALSO A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!

        Regardless of your opinion that news accounts are almost always inaccurate (and this by definition includes online editions of the same periodicals) I still think most of the major outlets do attempt to live up to certain standards for accurate reporting. The facts in each story often change because—well, because as the story evolves, new facts usually come out. But, to suggest that news outlets have little or no stake in accurate reporting is patently absurd! We all know that various left and right wing publication cherry pick their facts and use comments made by biased individuals—this is unfortunately true—but are you saying it makes no difference if we get our facts form scandal rags like “Midnight Enquirer,” or any “daily snoop” kind of publication because ALL news reporting is inaccurate? In addition, none of our news outlets, reputable or not, can mange to publish all stories involving gun crimes. They are finite publications that must also report sporting events, local and national news, human interest stories, obituaries, opinion pages, and, for that matter, the latest recipe for Chili! It doesn’t bother me at if they cannot hold as much information as the Library of Congress!

        Another thing you claimed is that criminals cannot order guns from the internet unless they are antiques. But if one Goggles the subject, many articles can be found that more clearly define the type of internet sales used by shooters like Adam Lanza. In many areas, the internet remains unregulated and allows mass-shooters to purchase thousands of rounds of ammunition and body armor in online sales relatively easily. The laws for purchasing fire arms differ from state to state, so sometimes criminals evade the system more easily, in some states than in others.

        Many officials have pointed out that Lanza’s purchase of guns, which included a Glock pistol and a shotgun, were legal because he required no criminal background checks. However, he also purchased thousands of rounds of ammunition and body armor—including not only a tactical vest and pants but also a ballistic helmet, a gas mask, and a throat protector. Remember also, that the AR15 he used, had previously had been outlawed in the 1994 “assault” weapons ban. And, Mr. Vazquez, are you seriously suggesting that at no time in the history of gun sales, has a licensed dealer deliberately sold guns for cash or without initiating sufficient background checks simply because he could get away with it?

        Without going on ad-infinitum, let me please reiterate that, I do NOT believe that ANY Amendment should NEVER be changed and, I think there are many obviously common sense measures that should be considered applicable when regulating certain firearms. In that sense, my analogy of a car, needing to be registered, licensed, and requiring a trained driver, etc. was not meant as an analogy about another constitutionally allowed possession—instead it was an example of another potentially dangerous possession, which ALSO, poses a credible threat to the public’s safety. If you want to stay within the 2nd Amendment boundaries, then I would mention the fact that, at one time Machine guns were unregulated in the US but were eventually well regulated and denied from being legally possessed by most civilians. And, it was for the same reason—because they represented A DANGER to the public!

        Although Ronald Reagan was responsible for easing several gun regulations during his term, here is something he said in 1991 at Georgetown University:

        “You know that I’m a member of the NRA, my position on right to bear arms is well known. But I want you to know something else. And I am going to say it in clear unmistakable language. I support the Brady Bill and I urge Congress to enact it.”

        In 2004 President George W. Bush said, “I think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban.” And also, “I believe law abiding citizens ought to be able to own a gun. I believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere in order to make sure that guns don’t get into the hands of people who should not have them.”

        Even Richard Nixon’s only on-the-record statement about guns is, “Guns are an abomination.”

        So, Mr. Vazquez, it seems that a number of conservatives and famous Americans, more closely agree with me by insisting that, some regulation of firearms is both allowable and practical. Quit trying to paint me as some scheming ideologue simply because I would like to find a way to keep more of them away from mass-shooters. Especially if—gasp!—some regulations are actually needed!

      • i have tried to make this point repeatedly (on deaf ears) to the gun crowd when the say…”criminals don’t follow laws, so why should new laws have any effect..” or similar. i make the point that very many of the shootings don’t come from criminals – at least they weren’t criminals until they shot someone. Often we’re talking domestic violence, people known to each other, that sort of thing, as well as all of the accidents and suicides.

      • Do we have any reported statistics to say: 1. How many criminals are killed annually by law abiding citizens who own guns.
        2. How many criminals are killed annually by other criminals who own guns.
        3. How many legal gun owners are killed by criminals owning illegal guns.
        4. How many law abiding citizens are killed annually by other law abiding citizens who own guns.
        5. How many law abiding citizens who own guns are killed by other law abiding gun owners.
        6. How many children are killed annually by legally held guns.
        I think such statistics must exist but I’ve not seen them introduced to this discussion. T.

      • 1. How many criminals are killed annually by law abiding citizens who own guns.: 201 “justifiable homicides” by non-law enforcement officers in 2011 per FBI stats

        http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-15

        The questions 2, 3, 4 and 5 cannot be answered as they are ; outside of these 260 cases, a law abiding citizen ceases to be one and becomes a criminal as soon as he/she pulls the trigger.
        Do you mean “people with no previous conviction” for “law abiding citizens”, and “people with previous convictions” for “criminals”?

        To answer question 6, we need to know if “children” is under 18, under 16, 14, other?

      • ” i make the point that very many of the shootings don’t come from criminals – at least they weren’t criminals until they shot someone.” This is not correct. I served as a police officer in a major, crime-ridden city, and the vast majority of shootings are performed by criminals, often convicted felons, who shouldn’t have been in possession of the weapons to begin with. For example, in the space of 3 years, 3 of our officers were shot and killed, 2 while on duty, 1 while off. All of the shooters were convicted felons and known violent criminals, one having just been released from prison, another who robbed the off-duty officer, then shot him and left him to die. And of all the shootings (whether resulting in death or wounding, or were simply illegally discharging a weapon in the city) I investigated, or knew about, were committed by individuals who already had criminal records, often convicted felons, and most of these involved narcotics, or were gang-related, or were committed during a robbery, or all of the above. Also, only a tiny minority of shootings are domestic-related, and in most of those cases, the shooters were, again, already well known to the criminal justice system. Most of the domestic-related deaths I investigated were stabbings, which are far more common than shootings, and most of which take place in drug-infested low-income housing, and often involve alcohol. And, once again, done by people who are already very well acquainted with jail.

      • Which is exactly why the physical availability of gun in a culture which uses them so much, has a great deal to do with many gun crimes. It is not just the mind of a criminal or any other offender–not just the mind, because if loopholes were closed, or if background checks were done more thoroughly, many (not all) but many, crimes could not have happened if an actually physically present gun was not available to the perpetrator!

        I can understand why some pro-gun people, feel that it is not going to be effective to ban many of the semi-automatic weapons available to mass shooters, but why in the world do they insist on the “freedom” to have large capacity magazines on weapons? I think it is a fair trade off for home owners to stop intruders with mere ten round magazines, especially if this will also prevent dozens of innocent people from being killed in shootings like Aurora or Newtown. And, if the gun industry would agree to quit making semi-automatic weapons that closely resemble more dangerous weapons that ARE capable of fully automatic fire, then surely weapons like the AR-15 would become less attractive to many of the unbalanced people who can easily get them from the Internet.

        The gun industry plays a big role in the reasons these tragedies happens and, if they would just compromise a bit on issues like gun registration, universal background checks and/or the restriction or elimination of large capacity magazines, it would do a great deal to help diminish this problem!

      • “The point is that there are lots of people who think of themselves as good guys who end up becoming bad guys with their guns…”
        It is completely irrelevant what someone “thinks” of oneself. I have arrested many, many criminals, including robbers, thieves, rapists, etc, who think of themselves as good guys. What counts is what the courts think of them. And in the case of Zimmerman, for example, he was found not guilty of murder, which, at least shows that the courts do not think of him as a “bad guy”.

        ” In both instances, a “good guy” was responsible for a tragic gun crime…”
        Uh, no. In the case of Zimmerman, it was found that no crime was committed, which would make it impossible to have been “responsible” for one. And, if you are attempting to argue that Lanza’s mother was “responsible” for murder, then you would be arguing that she could have been arrested and prosecuted for murder had she lived. And this would not have happened. I have investigated many cases in which weapons were stolen from citizens, and those weapons were later used to commit assaults, murders, etc. And I have never arrested the rightful owners of those weapons, because the weapons were later used in crimes. I just can’t imagine going to the home of a family that was burglarized, for example, and arresting them, because the weapons stolen from them were later used in crimes. And this is what you are arguing SHOULD be the case. Sorry, doesn’t make any sense.

      • Actually, the jury in Zimmerman’s trial didn’t decide that no crime was committed; it just decided it didn’t have enough evidence to convict him of murder. But his conduct on this occasion and others indicates that he’s far from being a “good guy”, and it may be just a matter of time before he does commit a serious crime.

        I’m not sure how relevant it is to discuss the culpability of the mother of the Connecticut shooter, but it’s very relevant indeed to note that the shooter himself was a “good guy” right up until he murdered a bunch of people.

      • Although it is certainly true that many offenders commit gun crimes after having some sort of other criminal offense records, it really doesn’t make sense that those who don’t have such records, would never commit crimes of passion, or for the first time—even though having a history of being solid, stand up citizens.

        If we put a child in a room with matches, it is only a matter of time until that child sets fire to the room after his curiosity causes him to play with them. Likewise, I would presume that ANYBODY–ABSOLUTELY ANYBODY—who commits a crime, would be more likely to use a gun, if such weapons were easily available—including those with anger, passion and unexpected responses to stress who might commit their first crime with a gun!

        Of course someone with mental illness, might kill in other ways as well, but why provide he or she easy access to weapons—in the same way that it would be foolish to leave unsupervised children alone in a room with matches. But what is so bloody awful about providing basic background checks that might keep guns out of the hands of criminals or the mentally ill?

        In fact, most employers ask prospective employees about their past (including criminal offenses) in order to prevent themselves from hiring someone who might end up being a liability to their businesses , as well it would with credit card companies that insist on financial background checks before doing business with an unknown customer. What do you think about these kinds of regulations Mr. Vazquez? Does their existence threaten the freedoms and liberties of people without questionable records? Do employers have no right to protect their own interests, just like the government has a right to protect the pubic from potential harm?—(providing for the common defense and promoting our general welfare)? How are simple background checks of those purchasing weapons any different—even if most people who buy them, really do not pose a threat to society? Should we make no effort to screen for those that do? or fail to check the backgrounds of people who might very well otherwise, pose as threats to the public?

        The Manchin–Toomey bill was one of the least threatening bills ever devised to regulate the purchase of firearms. Senator Toomey already had an A rating from the NRA concerning his support of laws that permit for the private ownership of guns and, which defended 2nd Amendment rights, yet even he was puzzled as to why or how anyone would find offense at, or fear, the provisions in that bill. However, political pressure caused a small amount of Democrats to vote against it, and therefore sink it!

        Its true that a very small number of flags raised during background checks lead to any prosecutions, but the same is true about the war on terror—does just one more World Trade Center type of catastrophe warrant the vigilance of our intelligence agencies, or does the relative infrequent existence of terrorist plots justify these agencies to do nothing?

        The truth is that the NRA now exists mainly as a lobbying group for the firearms industry and has very little to do with real concerns about supposed violations of the 2nd amendment. If this were not the case, then practical and fair regulations would have been used much earlier and with less defiant resistance! If you want to help sell a controversial product, first create a conspiracy theory about your opponents, and a movement based on very little justification at all!

      • Thank you for your thoughtful, long response. I’ll try to respond to everything you wrote, point by point. Luckily for you, you are writing to someone who not only has served as a police officer in a large crime ridden city, but does fundraising for the NRA. (I am not employed/paid by the NRA, though).

        A)”Although it is certainly true that many offenders commit gun crimes after having some sort of other criminal offense records, it really doesn’t make sense that those who don’t have such records, would never commit crimes of passion, or for the first time—even though having a history of being solid, stand up citizens. ”

        Well, all known crimes, in the United States are known because they are a matter of public record. All police reports are available to you, as are all court minutes/verdicts/decisions, all witness testimony that was recorded, etc. So research into crimes is not a matter of “not making sense”, it’s a matter of public record. So, I challenge you to find someone, who was found guilty of shooting anyone (whether just wounding the victim, or killing), who has NO CRIMINAL RECORD, and NO CRIMINAL INVOLVEMENT whatsoever, previously. We are not talking about voodoo here, we’re not talking about a paranormal or supernatural investigation, with no basis in fact. Almost everything involving known and adjudicated crimes is verifiable– which is exactly why they were adjudicated. So, if you believe there is a case, or cases, of people who have shot someone, without any previous involvement with law enforcement at all, please present such cases here. I would certainly accept court testimony as evidence, or police reports, or any court records available online, etc. In my state, you can look up anyone you wish, online, and see their entire court history. So this task would not exactly be difficult. Please take this opportunity and do so. Remember, whether something makes sense to you or not is irrelevant, when presenting an argument. What may not make sense to you, probably due to a lack of experience with this sort of thing (and by ‘this sort of thing’ I mean dealing with shootings, murders, criminals on a daily basis for 12 hours a day, almost 365 days a year, for years on end), may be as clear as day to someone who HAS had such experience.

        B)”Likewise, I would presume that ANYBODY–ABSOLUTELY ANYBODY—who commits a crime, would be more likely to use a gun…”

        Again, presumption is not evidence, and is often not a safe or wise thing to do, when making a scientific inquiry, or presenting a case, etc. I would like to presume that I have won the lottery and am now a billionaire, but such a presumption would have little value to anyone other than myself. Now that I think about it, in the American legal system, the only thing that can be presumed is a defendant’s innocence… but that’s not quite the same meaning you have in mind, I think. Again, if you feel you have evidence to back up what you are claiming, then please present it here. But until then, I must treat it as if you were stating you were presuming you’d won the lottery.

        C)”Of course someone with mental illness, might kill in other ways as well, but why provide he or she easy access to weapons—…… But what is so bloody awful about providing basic background checks that might keep guns out of the hands of criminals or the mentally ill?”

        I do not know what country you live in, or are familiar with, but in the USA, it is illegal for a person who was found mentally unfit by a judge to purchase a firearm from a dealer— this is according to FEDERAL LAW, and is enforced by the ATF. Background checks are already a matter of Federal law. No one, that I know of, wants to rescind said Federal law. I certainly don’t. In other words, background checks are already the law of the land… I am not trying to be flip, it just seems you are not aware of this.

        D)”In fact, most employers ask prospective employees about their past (including criminal offenses) in order to prevent themselves from hiring someone who might end up being a liability to their businesses , as well it would with credit card companies that insist on financial background checks before doing business with an unknown customer. What do you think about these kinds of regulations Mr. Vazquez?”

        What I think is is that you don’t realize that it isn’t “regulations” that causes employers to want to check employees’ backgrounds, or lenders to check the creditworthiness of borrowers, it’s just common sense. I could be wrong, but I don’t believe there is a Federal or State law that says “Employers of Toys R Us (or any other company) shall check the backgrounds of any potential employees before hiring them”. i don’t think the government could care less if Jack In the Box hires felons, which I’m sure they do– that is purely company policy.
        Furthermore, I have no idea what getting a credit card, which is basically getting a loan from a bank, and signing a contract, or promise, to pay that bank a certain interest rate every month, in exchange for the use of a large sum of money at one’s will, has to do with possessing a firearm. Unlike a firearm, a credit card itself has no intrinsic value– it is simply a worthless plastic SYMBOL of a contract or loan. And a lender would be wise to make sure a borrower has good credit before loaning him money. I’m sorry, but I don’t see the connection between a legal contract between two people (a credit card), and a firearm. There is no contract between the buyer of a firearm and the seller, after money has exchanged hands. Just as if you were to go to a used car lot and purchase a Jeep in full with cash…. no contract. Certainly there is a warranty, just as there would be a warranty on the firearm, but this is far from being a contract. I’m thinking apples and oranges here, sorry.
        I was going to write that unlike a credit or debit card, you can’t take a gun to a bank or ATM or a Walmart, present it, and get money or goods in exchange… but I thought better of it… that’s humor.

        E)”Do employers have no right to protect their own interests, just like the government has a right to protect the pubic from potential harm?”

        Absolutely not. I understand where you’re coming from, in a very general, hazy way, but no. Absolutely. Not.
        Civics Lesson #1– governments don’t have rights. Only individuals do. I need to make that very clear, because if that very basic point isn’t understood, nothing else can be, at least constitutionally speaking.
        I will repeat, for effect, as we used to say in the military– GOVERNMENTS DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS. ONLY INDIVIDUALS DO.
        Furthermore, your likening a government to an “employer” is disturbing to me. As if you felt, deep down, that we are all “employees” of the government– we are somehow subordinate to it, and we need it for “protection”. Again, I don’t mean to sound flippant, but I’m afraid that only someone who has a very profound, profound, profound misunderstanding of what government is, or should be, would liken a government to an “employer”. And no, governments do not “have the right to protect their own interests”. Their purpose is to protect the rights of the people.

        Furthermore, the purpose of the Constitution is to PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM THE GOVERNMENT– it is a LIMITATION on the powers of government…. but that’s a discussion for another time.

        F)”Should we make no effort to screen for those that do? or fail to check the backgrounds of people who might very well otherwise, pose as threats to the public?”

        See above. I already wrote that I am in no way in favor of rescinding Federal law, which already mandates background checks. And, see above also, that you don’t seem to be aware of this.

        G)”The Manchin–Toomey bill was one of the least threatening bills ever devised to regulate the purchase of firearms. Senator Toomey already had an A rating from the NRA concerning his support of laws that permit for the private ownership of guns and, which defended 2nd Amendment rights, yet even he was puzzled as to why or how anyone would find offense at, or fear, the provisions in that bill. However, political pressure caused a small amount of Democrats to vote against it, and therefore sink it! ”

        I have no idea what is in this bill. But I don’t understand what the bill would present that doesn’t already exist in Federal law, or in my own state’s law. Federal law and my state’s law already regulate the sale of firearms, to a level (actually beyond a level) at which I think is perfect. What, SPECIFICALLY, does the bill do, that doesn’t already exist in either Federal law or Virginia state law? Once again, I will repeat, BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE ALREADY THE LAW OF THE LAND. That is what you are harping for, and it already exists. So I’m puzzled as to what this bill says that you’re so enamored with. Please be specific. Please, SPECIFICALLY, list what the bill proposes, that doesn’t already exist in the law today. Don’t say “background checks!”, because background checks are already the law of the land. Be specific.

        H)”does just one more World Trade Center type of catastrophe warrant the vigilance of our intelligence agencies, or does the relative infrequent existence of terrorist plots justify these agencies to do nothing? ”

        No one is recommending that intelligence agencies do nothing. What many people ARE saying is that for pete’s sake, intelligence agencies should not be listening to our phone conversations (without Probable Cause and a warrant), especially not based on the political positions of said individuals or groups. Intelligence agencies should be following the law. And, of course, I am referring, for example, to the latest scandal of the NSA listening in on phone conversations and emails of private citizens and private organizations. Which leads me to mention the NRA, which has actually joined in a lawsuit, alongside the ACLU of all people, against the Federal Government, due to the NSA’s actions. And with good reason.

        I)”The truth is that the NRA now exists mainly as a lobbying group for the firearms industry and has very little to do with real concerns about supposed violations of the 2nd amendment.”

        This comment is so devoid of evidence to back it up, I am wondering where to start. I suppose I’ll start by saying that you are assuming that the only firearms that exist in the United States are THOSE WHICH ARE YET TO BE MADE. In other words, you are assuming that there are no existing firearms nowadays– there are no firearms in the hands of private citizens that were manufactured in the 1890s, or 1920s, or 1950s, or 1990s, etc etc. My point is that the “firearms industry”, once it sells firearms, has no claim on those firearms. The firearms industry does not benefit from firearms it sold 50 years ago, or 20 years ago. What good does it do to “lobby” for the hundreds of millions of firearms that are already in the hands of citizens? Furthermore, most firearms I own are foreign-made— some are Kalashnikovs, manufactured in Soviet Russia at the height of the cold war… others, like a Walther P-38 that my father gave to me, which he himself took from a Waffen SS officer he’d killed on a German battlefield, was made in Prussia…. is the now-defunct Soviet Tula weapons factory, or some underground WWII German pistol factory being “lobbied” for? Does the current Russian maker and importer of AKs have a “lobbyist” in the NRA? Silliness. Furthermore, you are apparently unaware that the greatest employer of the American Firearms Industry is the United States Government. Just last year, for example, the US Marine Corps awarded Colt a contract worth tens of millions of dollars to make their M45, replacement for the M9. And that’s just one tiny contract, for a pistol. Almost every police department, both Federal, State, and local, not just in the US but in Europe etc uses Glock pistols— a company headquartered and owned by Austrians, not Americans, and for which the NRA would have no reason to lobby— meaning that Glock gets hundreds of millions, if not more, of dollars a year from GOVERNMENT entities, the world over… far, far more than they get from buyers among private citizens… so if there is a giant lobbyist for the firearms industry, it’s the US Government. And you’re worried about the NRA lobbying….? Phooey.

        And, frankly, even if the NRA were lobbying for firearms companies, which it is not, so what? The US Government not only lobbies for auto companies, it bails them out. It lobbies for and bails out many other industries as well, including banks. As if we’re shocked that the US Government would be involved at all in the military/industrial complex…. as the French gendarme said in Casablanca, we’re shocked, just shocked, aren’t we?

      • Mr. Vazquez,

        I didn’t expect such a long reply to my earlier post, and I don’t know if I have the time to make a point by point rebuttal but here are some replies to your post;

        I asked you in an earlier post not to expect me to scour the entire police data base in order to state the opinion that it only makes sense, that some gun crimes are committed by those with no prior criminal records or without prior criminal involvement. But, if I may offer some criticisms I would include that, firstly, you are probably aware of crimes in your own metropolitan area, and I doubt you have really examined all the specifics of gun crimes committed throughout the country. Secondly, you are discussing all crimes that are known to have been reported and crimes in which defendants have been found “guilty” by a criminal court. And, as the POP pointed out in his post which was titled (I believe) “Make My Day Mention gun Statistics,” many of the reported interventions which supposedly prevent fatalities and harm in gun attacks, are statistically, impossible to have happened in such numbers, as well as the fact that they do not distinguish specifically, for example, that some interventions result in even greater harm to the people involved. Other crimes are also probably reported with the use of subjective claims that may not really be accurate, along with the fact that some gun “studies” are not done with scientific analysis, but are rather the result of telephone surveys—perhaps one of the least accurate ways to collect data. I see no reason to believe that some of the same subjective twists and turns might apply to the reporting of shootings in which individual were first time offenders without prior “criminal involvement,” not to mention all of the incidents of gun attacks which are never reported.

        Yes, common sense is not always a basis for good argument, but it is also indispensible when juries examine the evidence and decide that reasonable doubt has NOT been established. George Zimmerman was a prime example not of someone who was found innocent, but rather, someone who was NOT CONVICTED, due to a lack of evidence. And the Colorado Theatre shooter had no prior assaults or involvement in violent crimes, yet we know how that case turned out. Yes he had a mental illness, and still passed background checks but, a major component of gun regulations have to do with improving the accessibility of data about mental illnesses in basics background checks, which are often subject to differing laws in different States! I also have read about many of the crimes committed that are reported about in our local newspapers. They are sometimes violent and sometimes involve guns, but rarely have I seen a comment made that involved a perpetrator’s complete record of previous crimes or a listing of their prior criminal involvements. And, if their perpetrators previously had a spotless record, (except perhaps having a repeat record of DUIs) the paper often sees no need to disclose that fact. To me it would indeed seem to involve voodoo or some other supernatural influence if no shooter had ever used a gun for the first time to commit a crime—even if they were upstanding members of the city council or the local PTA. Crimes of passion are often committed for a number of reasons, and may involve those without prior criminal records.

        When I brought up the use of background checks by prospective employers and by credit card companies, I was not attempting to equate every differing financial and social reason which necessitates them, with gun crimes—I was only trying to use examples of the many ways that simple cautionary background checks are definite parts of our society. Someone who buys a gun may not have problems with credit or may be employed by a boss who doesn’t do a background check (feeling no need to do one) but screening gun purchases has a direct effect on preventing risk to the public. Something a credit card company (with the exception of identity fraud investigations) does not really do, and buying a gun will most likely not risk the financial security of possible employers. These are distinctly different cases that involve background checks, but the basic foundation of them all, is that they exist to protect certain entities from risks, harm and abuse!

        I would also add that your conception of the proper function of government is not etched in stone nor is it the only way to view the subject. The preamble to the Constitution specifically states that the Constitution gives the United States, the power to, “insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,” and, “Promote the general welfare,” to, “secure, the blessings of liberty.” In that sense our military exists to protect all of us from forced invasion and/or physical harm. The colonialists had no direct say in the way the government of England functioned but were still subject to its oppressive laws—we do have a choice! It’s called voting and petitioning our grievances to our government and legislators— something which the colonists were unable to do!

        I must say that if you consider that the Obama Administration or any other Administration, is actually scheming to disarm you of your guns, (for God knows what purpose), or that the government could not prevent its current President being impeached before he could ever go on such a mad power trip, you are mistaken. I have often asked those with such opinions to provide any believable scenario describing such a take over, and how that could possible happen in a Representative Democracy? It is far more unlikely than the possibility that the TEA PARTY could seize complete control of Congress this year! Sorry if I don’t humor you—but it’s just impossibility! Could you actually provide a credible scenario of how this could ever really happen?

        My claim that anyone would be more likely to use a gun to commit a crime, specifically stipulated cases where one would be easily available. So, say you want to kill the lady across the street (just hypothetically) and you were sitting in a room with many semi-automatic weapons or other firearms—are you saying you would not be likely to choose one of those guns rather than a knife or a paper weight?—especially if this were a pre-meditated murder? Yes, you might use something else—but what about that AR15 in your lap?

        Yes, it is against the law to buy a weapon without a background check, but there are several ways to get around this legal roadblock. First of all the person who sells you a gun, may covertly choose not to give you a background check (for whatever reason) and secondly, almost anyone can find underground websites were they can purchase just about anything they want by using sophisticated encryption and a special untraceable internet currency. Dealers at many gun shows are also able to sell for cash directly out of their own vehicle’s trunks, or may choose not to even document the sale. The attempt to regulate guns, merely seeks to prevent such situations—not to make anyone Obama’s slave!

        If those of your mindset are so calm about basics background checks that already exist, then why all of the commotion and angst about the Manchin-Toomey bill which did not deny anyone’s rights but merely, sought to improve requirements for purchasers at gun shows, and to facilitate more effective screening on the internet and at actual gun stores? Toomey really was amazed that anyone could have opposed this bill with the argument that it restricted freedom. Here is a link to that website, which discusses the bill and its specifics, on a pro-gun, online journal:

        http://www.guns.com/2013/04/10/senators-reach-deal-on-universal-background-checks-its-not-gun-control-video/

        As far as the NSA—its function is also to protect us from terrorist threats by using mega data gathering. Sure, some irresponsible agents may use its capabilities for personal reasons, but that’s clearly illegal. And, as to why the government would even want to read the actual content of all the billions of text messages, cell phone messages, and emails that are sent everyday, the answer is that they don’t! Just like Postal service employees are free to read the addresses and content descriptions on the packages they receive and deliver, but are not free to open that mail without a Court order based on reasonable suspicions, but they cannot, and hardly are ever even interested in, reading any of our own personal emails. They seek FISA Court Order, only when a pattern of calls from our numbers, are made to known terrorists or to those suspected of terrorism, or, because of some other suspicious activities. By doing this, they have probably been able to foil a number of terrorist plots before they happen.

        I am a complete supporter of 4th amendment rights, but, the main reform needed to regulate the operations of the FISA court and the NSA, is to provide a public attorney or representative at court procedures, who can then advocate for the contention that further investigation may not be warranted in a certain specific case.

        Obama didn’t invent FISA and neither did Bush—it has been around since 1979 and has always been known to members of Congress—so attempting to crucify Obama for it, is merely another witch hunt launched by the GOP in order to provide a public forum to spread undue criticisms about the government.

        Since I cannot write all day, let me just address your conception of Lobbyists and Lobbying. The English Dictionary defines Lobbying as: “to try and influence public officials and, especially legislators.” Its goal is to influence Congress—not the other way around! So, Lobbyists are hired by special interests like the gun industry—to influence the Government. Consequently, I don’t understand your claim that the Government lobbies “for” special interests, rather than being influenced by them. The only way the government lobbies companies is as a result of massive influence from legislators who already have special interests, and/or, belong to political caucuses that can wield considerable power, or, by who have been persuaded by industry lobbyists to support a certain company or particular special interest group. When companies were bailed out by the government this was done to avoid complete financial collapse. Where else would these companies have obtained the hundreds of billions of dollar needed to stay afloat—from other companies who were desperately floundering themselves?

        I don’t buy the argument that the government should have no interest in legislating ways to protect Americans physically or from other specific social dangers. The next time you eat some chicken that is infested with ecoli bacteria, ask yourself if it is really that threatening to depend on the fact that the FDA (although presently much too inadequate in its scope) can identify which products are contaminated and then warn us all as part of dong a pubic service. And, is it just government’s intrusion on business to provide guidelines that can protect such future outbreaks? Again, these are analogies meant to establish the need for government protections, not to perfectly parallel the specific factors involved in the regulation of guns.

        If you currently accept, without anguish, the claim that adequate gun regulations already exist, why fight tooth and nail against even a few specific and minor changes—such as improved background checks like those in the Manchin Toomey bill? I hope you will visit my link to the bill, since it provides statements from the co-authors, as well as an overview of the proposed bill, and the option to click on a link which reveals all of the specifics details in the bill.

        By the way, are you denying any financial investments by the firearms industry in America—just on the basis that many weapons are imported or are already grandfathered away by private owners? Isn’t that an attempt to use a straw man argument by convincing me that no manufacture of guns or marketing of them to increase sales, exists in America, and that therefore my claims that affirm the NRA’s business interests are completely invalid?…I think not! The government may be a prime customer of the gun industry, as any Nation with a large military would have to be, but don’t think it cannot also be involved in regulating the availability of weapons which are so terribly misused in so many domestic assaults and mass shootings. And realizes that the intent is not to disarm citizens but to find answers that can keep those who use guns for violent crimes, from having easy access to them!

      • Mr. Vazques,

        I have no idea why the coments on this thread are so much out of order, but as far as crimes being committed by those with no criminal records and who are new gun owners, I do mention that I have found several studies that conclude those without previously owning guns, and without other criminal convictions, do definitely commit gun crimes.

        In my post way back, I listed the names of these studies and the statistics involved. The conclusion is that although first time gun owners without previous criminal convictions, or records, do actually commit about 2% of our gun crimes. That is far less than those who have owned guns for a long time, or who have definite criminal histories, but at 2% of many millions of gun owners, this amounts to up to 1,600,000 new owners without previous records. To me that does indeed represent a significant amount.

        My mention of the lobbying efforts of the NRA, is meant to alter the perception that it acts only as some ideological advocate for what some may consider sane or patriotic when claiming absolute and indisputable first amendment rights. The truth is that very few of the 80,000,000 gun owners in America are members of the NRA nor do they approve of unlimited or unbounded freedom to own guns.

        Whether the government is a large purchaser of guns is really a straw man argument, because what is at stake is the way the NRA ensures that guns be regulated as little as possible not matter how they may affect the public’s safety. Would you say that 80,000,000 private gun owners, with 100,000,000 guns is an insignificant amount of business, or, that because many guns are purchased from other companies, that somehow erases the importance of such a numbers? Do you think that banning certain weapons would not interfere with some of the profits earned by the gun industry?

        What I often see in the statements of gun advocates is an overly simplistic way to bog down issues with endless semantics. In this respect, what do you mean by scoffing at the reality of high speed ammunition? Tell me, is all ammunition fired at the same rate of speed? And, contrary to the laws of physics that, the speed of a projectile makes no difference in its destructive impact?

        I haven’t got all night to argue about the meanings or each and every term you or I use. And, in that sense, why bother comparing the fairness of regulating instrument that are specifically designed to kill with regulating automobiles or paperweights which are definitely NOT designed to kill—add infinitum, add absurdum!

        I have no desire to carry on an endless argument about, say, whether the sky is really blue, because conditions are sometimes cloudy, or that sunrises and sunsets contain many crimson hues. We all know that very few assertions cannot be made without also discussing exceptions to them—but the point is that when I say the sky is blue, you know definitely what I mean without resorting to endless semantics! Sometimes explanations are in order if a genuine doubt occurs about their meaning, but few of the concepts on this thread have not been explained to you over and over again—but to no avail.

        I think it is rather childish to endlessly argue about concrete facts with spins and semantics. So, if you want to imply that the NRA does not lobby in Congress, that is only so much hot air! Its also a straw man argument to excuse such lobbying, whether other industries lobby or not! the influence of the NRA on gun legislation is what we are talking about—and that kind of argument doesn’t negate it’s political goals!

        If you have read my previous posts which have challenged and disproven many of your ideas about gun owners who had never owned guns before, or never been involved in gun crimes before, then you have failed to provide answers to them.

        As the saying goes—we can all believe that whatever we say is true, but we can’t make up our own facts (and expect others to not to notice)—my addition.

      • I don’t know, “oregonnotary”. I have arrested many, many people for “gun crimes”, the most common of which is possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (and the least common of which is actually firing the weapon), and I can’t think of one of them that was, in most realistic respects, “a good guy/girl”. In fact, most convicted felons aren’t what you would call “good guys/girls”. And most firearms possessed and used illegally are by people who shouldn’t have them to begin with– convicted felons. The idea that most gun crimes (which again, is usually possession of a firearm by a felon, or robbery, etc) are committed by otherwise law-abiding citizens is a myth. It is difficult to be a felon in possession of a firearm without being a a felon to begin with….

      • “It’s important to remember that there’s no magical dividing line between armed good guys and armed bad guys”

        I would say there is a pretty stark dividing line between police officers and those with criminal records, especially convicted felons. To say otherwise would be foolish.

      • Every criminal commits a first crime. Sometimes that even includes police officers. A crime, any crime, is committed by a person or persons with the motive, the desire, the opportunity and the means. And there is no magical dividing line between individuals who do not have those things and those who do. To say otherwise is naive.

      • So if It’s important to remember that there’s no magical dividing line between armed good guys and armed bad guys; and the “good guys” are in fact responsible for a great many gun crimes then why let the military and police carry guns? After all they are mere mortals as we are and just as pron to do evil as we. So let the state disarm all of us and pass laws to have each one of us placed in a home built like a prison so we can be safe from our neighbors, bars on the windows and locked steel doors that only the government can open. Then if a good citizen goes bad we are safe. Of course if the government [made up of people like you and me] go bad they can terminate you and I at will. And weaponless none of us would be able to do anything to defend our lives from this arbitrary government decision [run by imperfect men and women like us] The potential for mankind to do evil will never leave us. That is why it is an inalienable right for me to be able to defend my own life. Remember that Cain killed Able without a gun. Cain simply rose up against Abel his brother and killed him. Morel of the story…you do not need a gun, a knife or a club or bow and arrows to kill. If evil is in your heart and you turn from good toward evil than one only needs to surprise an unarmed person and kill them with a rock or their bear hands. I for one will keep and bear arms. As Colt said in the 19th century when he invented the revolver. “God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal,” Also an armed population is a polite population.

      • vpertoso,

        Just mentioning that human beings are fallible and claiming that since people can be killed with any type of weapons, is not a sufficient reason to advance a takeover theory—especially in America where we have a strong division of powers that would not allow for easy control by any executive, or by any President and/or his party. If anything, such a crackdown would immediately be met with cries to impeach the President—even assuming that all of the police force and military would blindly obey a commander in chief that ordered such lunacy?

        You are correct that human beings will murder anyway they can, but proposing easy access to ballistic weapons, without any attempt to weed out criminals and the insane from possessing them, could not conceivable help the situation. Under your view of human nature, we might as well get rid of the police force and the military completely, since even enforcing our laws would not prevent any abuses from potential killers or hostile nations. You are really advocating anarchy–something which has never been good for a civilized society. So, why should we even lock up convicted murderers or try violent offenders in a court of law?—according to you, human nature would negate any efforts to eliminate a threat from any kinds of criminals, and only vigilante actions by armed good guys would work. But good luck to your well being in any kind of apocalypse which would becomes all the more possible when helped along by the belligerent distrust and paranoia which is so common among radical interpreters of the Second amendment!

      • Anarchy may be exactly what he wants, if he’s a right-wing libertarian like L. Neil Smith: the total eradication of any government control or oversight in favor of a free, voluntary, unrestricted market. Under such circumstances, the only restraint any armed person would feel would be the so-called Zero-Aggression Policy, or “ZAP”. Except that everyone would be free to voluntarily ignore it when it suited their purposes.

      • Biochemistry,

        You are probably right, since those who feel threatened when their supposed rights must give way to public safety issues, must want to write all of the rules over again to suit themselves—public safety and welfare be damned! And, being someone who thinks we should be ruled by a representative democracy, that is designed to, at least eventually, include the wishes of ordinary citizens as expressed by the power of their vote, I would not want my own conceptions of a sane society jeopardized by someone who refuses to accept t